User talk:Phe: Difference between revisions

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| talk)

phe : I reloaded an upside-down copy (see [[Image:Hydnjo.JPG]]) but it still shows the earlier (right-side-up) image even after doing your reload suggestion. I even restarted my computer which closes all apps and restarts them. Something strange here - I'll let you know if I ever figure it out.

Well look at that, in the time that it took to type this message to you, the image flipped upside-down. Strange - some kind of time delay to work through the system (I think).

I'm going to make it right-side-up now. [[User:Hydnjo| Hydnjo\^talk]] 05:51, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ignore the above. The image is either right-side-up or upside-down at some whim that I don't about yet. I'll let you know when I find out. [[User:Hydnjo| Hydnjo\^talk]] 06:02, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• I am contacting people who previously helped to vote to delete a generally objectionable photograph by a vote of 88 to 21, and who might be unaware that immediately after that image was voted to be deleted someone posted another which was very similar in content. My objections to this, and the previous image that was voted to be deleted might be based upon reasons far different from any that you have, but I do object to it, and consider the posting of such images to be acts of asinine stupidity, which burdens the project and its major educational aims in ways that they should not be burdened, and can be extremely detrimental to the acceptance and growth of WIkipedia's use and influence. Thus far those who I believe to be in the extreme minority of Wikipedians who would like to include these images, many who have been channeled to the voting page from the article with which it is associated have dominated the voting, 23 to 12 (as of the time that I composed this message). I would like to be somewhat instrumental in shedding a bit more light upon the issue, and if possible, helping to turn the tide against its inclusion. It might also be necessary to begin making an effort to establish an explicit Wikipedia policy against explicite photographic depictions of humans engaged in erotic, auto-erotic, or quasi-erotic activities. To my limited knowledge such images have not been accepted as appropriate anywhere else within this project, and frankly I can agree with those who are casually labeled prudes for opposing their inclusion, that they should not be. Vitally important information that might be unwelcome by some is one thing that should never be deleted, but un-needed images that can eventually prevent or impede many thousands or millions of people from gaining access to the great mass of truly important information that Wikipedia provides is quite another matter. There are vitally important distinctions to be made. Whatever your reasons, or final decisions upon the matter, I am appealing for more input on the voting that is occurring at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion. ~ Achilles † 04:01, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, you're definitely right. I don't remember exactly why I wrote that the date was disputed, but it seems to be almost definitely because of that error.

Thanks for all the effort you put into finding the correct date!

-Frazzydee|✍ 05:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ATT and WP:BLP. All claims about living people must be sourced to reliable sources. Almost every source in the Hocevar article is a debian source. Aren't there any newspapers or technical journals which have talked about him? Corvus cornix 22:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop kidding please :/ - phe 22:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kidding about what? Are there no reliable sources? Corvus cornix 22:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm started to be tired by this story, you first added a speedy delete tag on this article, then when rejected started to fight w/o any evidence with the sourcing problem, at least three different people reverted the unsourced tag, time to assume you're not of good faith :/ - phe 22:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies. Corvus cornix 22:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And ? speedy delete didn't work, trying now source arguing, what'll the next step ? - phe 23:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next is taking it to WP:DR if there aren't any sources added. Why is it such a problem to come up with reliable sources? Corvus cornix 23:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please, read again the article, if you fail to see source, restart - phe 23:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The entire second paragraph is sourced from Sam Hocevar's personal blog, which is not a reliable source, except for a link to a slashdot page which makes absolutely no mention of him. Corvus cornix 23:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Edits that rely on primary sources should only make descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge." All claims in this paragraphs are "Sam Hocevar worked on DVD subtitles and he wrote a Captcha decoder", such claims are easily checked with the given reference, if you think Sam Hocevar is lying please find a secondary source which challenge these works as stated in WP:ATT, that's starting to be ridiculous, you didn't even read the page you use as argument :/. - phe 23:48, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to continue to flood the talk page with more on Horcruxes and the content constantly being removed and added. So, I figured I would ask you here: you added back in the "Theories" with the comment that it was all sourced. So, question: does one source make a reliable "source" for Wikipedia purposes. The whole initial paragraph about the locket is not sourced until the final line, and in fact, mentions "forum posters" before it even links the Granger book. The rest of the disputed content then references only ONE work, which is that self-published book by Granger. I really don't consider this a "reliable source" to be used to promote a theory. Your thoughts? Ccrashh 12:53, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, as you point, the first part get better source than the second. For Granger I consider it as a reliable source. He already wrote non self-published book on HP topics (Tyndale House, 2004) sold up to 50 000 copy. This number is interesting, not as an argument ala "sold a lot means it's true", but given it I doubt self publishing is other books was forced by the lack of traditional editor wanting to publish them, many editors will be very happy with such number of copy sold. Granger gave also some lecture and various interview in HP related fields. So, as stated in Self published source:

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications

I think, what says Granger in this books is relevant (but I understand the bolded part can cause trouble). Since Folken claims this is original research, I also point Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary, and tertiary sources, especially

Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia.

- phe 18:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good spot, thanks. I think I've pointed it where I originally intended - or if not, at a suitable reference! Verisimilus T 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your query about oxygen accumulation...Erimus (talk) 05:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the editing interest you mention on your userpage, you might be interested in joining the History of Science WikiProject. You can browse the lastest project newsletter to see what some other editors have been doing lately with the histories of science, medicine and technology. Cheers--ragesoss (talk) 01:34, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Alice Russell (singer), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alice Russell (singer). Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 15:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied/pasted from Jimbo talk's page)

Ceedjee missed accidentally some small details, like the banned user publicly stated he was non longer on wp: to edit but to discourage people to edit wp:. - phe 17:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Phe,

I wrote : "It sounds as if the undefinite block will be (much) reduced (but this is not the issue)."

Do you think this is not a fair summary of the point you underline ? I think I took numerous cares in the way I introduced context to wp. If not or if he had some questions, Jimbo can ask more to Hadrien (referee) and Gribeco (main involved sysop).

The most important, I think, remains Jimbo statement. Put it in any context you like, give it the due weight you consider it must have but I think we have the Elder's mind and we could live with it.

(I copy paste this on your talk page here if you want to discuss this). Ceedjee (talk) 06:56, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure he understands what you mean.

Here, there is usually no reaction if diffs are not provided and more clues/facts given.

If you expect a reaction from Jimbo, it is important you give a wider context with precise arguments. That may not be bad that he nuances his mind (even if I don't see how he could or what to add).

The way you introduce this sounds more like some sort of "bitterness" or "frustration" and it doesn't give weight to your point of view and may lead to more "bitterness" or "frustration".

I suggest you develop your pov on a personnal user page and give the link on Jimbo's talk page.

Eg, you could translate in English some of my comments on wp:fr (straw man argumentation) or could develop the reasonning behing that remarks of Gribeco, Guillom and Hégésippe Cormier that defended the fact the CAr was not competent to state if the famous guy (Aliesin) should be deblocked or not.

But thinking about that, it will be hard : Jimbo (and sysops) barely comment "content"; they only comment "general principles" and leave the community to apply them in each context.

Ceedjee (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your outburst at the ArbCom Evicence page, which bares the marks of backchannelling, is perplexing. I do hope this isn't a conspiracy to mud-sling. At the very least, you'd be expect to add diffs to your extraordinary innuendos and claims of edit warring—where have I edit-warred on fr:wp? Just why you wish to plaster mistruths about me and others at an evidence page needs to be explained. What particular axe do you have to grind, and whose friend are you that you should plunge into the Evidence page in such a way? There is no central rule governing linking on fr.wp, and there is no edit-war I'm aware of—only calm discussion. Tony (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, please.. WP:AGF. These outbursts of indignation whenever someone notes your behavior simply must stop. There is no cabal or concerted effort to "get you", but this behavior of yours must stop. —Locke Cole • t • c 18:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 

Please stop that, the 8 april you have been requested to stop editing date link on en: through script, the next day you started the SAME behavior on fr:, most of of your edit has been reverted on fr:wp, you also did concerted edit with Ohconfucius. Anyway you have been warned on fr:, the war for/against date linking was sleeping on fr:, if the war restart, I'll ask for your indefinite ban on fr:wp:. - phe 18:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have presented official Evidence entitled "Attempt to export of edit war on other wikis". This is a straight-out lie, and you should be ashamed of yourself. I have reverted NO ONE, nor reinstateda previous version after mine was reverted. Not once. How DARE you portray this as edit-warring. You should be ashamed of yourself, stooping so low as to enter a politicised debate with anything but neutral, balanced information. You have, instead, degraded the process. There were requests from a few date-link enthusiasts on my talk pages, but I was suspicious as to whether they represented their own interests alone. I have stopped delinking, and never did more than a very few articles, mainly to see whether the script would work and to guage people's reaactions (mostly good).

Why don't I will accuse you of bad faith and dishonesty, then, and take steps to smear your name by distorting the truth; you could hardly complain, given your own behaviour. Or you could withdraw or significantly modify your outrageous allegations at the Evidence page. That would be symmetrical, wouldn't it? And quite just given your bad faith. Tony (talk) 18:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]