|
User talk:Aldaron/Archive
Non-free use disputed for Image:PCGinGamejpg.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:PCGinGamejpg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
ArchivingHello. Just create a page called User talk:Aldaron/Archive, and move whatever content you like there; it just works the same as any other wiki page. I found a nice archive template on some other article and copied it for mine, but you can just have a plaintext link to your archive, if you'd rather. There seems to be actual, authoritative guidance at Help:Archiving a talk page, if that's any more useful. --McGeddon 15:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Web 2.0 continues to need improvementHi, Aldaron. I was disappointed in your dismissal of my attempt to improve the clarity and usability of the article Web 2.0. Please consider my criticism seriously. Additional discussion at the article's Talk page. -- 201.19.77.39 10:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like you tried to add it as fair use, but it has the old description and licencing info from commons.-- Thinboy00 talk/contribs @15, i.e. 23:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
London EyeWouldn't you agree that the replacement photo shows the detail of the eye in better focus (yes, the other is in focus, but it's spinning, due to long exposure, so you can't see a damn thing), it's a higher resolution, it shows where it is, it shows the normal front view, it isn't as distracting as the blue-lit trees in the original which take up 2/3 of the shot? I'd say those are all true. --Evans1551 22:21, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
BS8God no, just the crudely added 'characters' section.~ZytheTalk to me! 22:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Fair use rationale for Image:2012.Alternate.jpgThanks for uploading or contributing to Image:2012.Alternate.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include afair use rationale. If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 media lacking such an explanation 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. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI(talk) 21:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:2012.Alternate.jpg)
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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described oncriteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: UCFDSeeWikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_play_German-style_board_games.VegaDark (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Recent HiG Rule ReleaseWithin the Carcassonne talk page, you mention a recent rule release invalidating your unofficial taxonomy. The comment was back from 2007, but I'm not certain which rule you're referring to. Could you clarify? -Fuzzy (talk) 16:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
German-style gamer user box confusionI think there's a big misunderstanding here that I've tried to clear up in therelevant discussion. I'm not "attempting to misrepresent Wikipedians" (as you say). Quite the opposite. I'm trying to represent them correctly, and repair a simple mistake that will in fact result in misrepresentation. As you correctly point out, repurposing a user box so that it re-categorizes a user is a bad idea. But that is not at all what is going on here. As I've pointed out already, even for users who thought they were expressing a website "affiliation" (something that doesnt' even really apply here in isolation from an interest in German-style games), the chance they lack an "interest in German-style games" is effectively zero. Moreover, as I've maintained, I think most people with the userbox had their interest in German-style games foremost in the first place, and were only incidentally concerned with the website. To the uninformed, the original characterization of the category ("For people who play German-style boardgames or frequent BoardGameGeek") is easily misinterpreted, since it hides the fact that the set of people who "frequent BoardGameGeek" is a strict subset of the people who "play German-style boardgames", so that the latter characterization (and the updated category) is correct for everyone in the old category. Because of this, the correct correct thing to do is to have the old userbox point to the new category. — Aldaron• T/C 21:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Deletion of User:AmbientArchitecture/BGGNice backhanded way of achieving your mission. — Aldaron • T/C 02:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Angel timing template removedIt was during the big furor when a handful of people were trying to merge every Angel episode for being non-notable. Bignole thought the timing templates in particular were a clear indication of why all the Angel articles were poorly written fancruft, and while I was doing work on the articles I took them out because I didn't have strong feelings one way or another. Incidentally, the merge controversy (over Angel and other TV series) is why I've left Wikipedia; I don't want to deal with those who think every article has to be either flawless or deleted. If you want to add the templates back, feel free. --Kweeket Talk 20:06, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Wikimedia - Koi-Koi Setup.jpgAre these cards the Napoleon Hanafuda Card Deck, the Miyako No Hana Hanafuda Deck, or some other ones? Axecution (talk) 22:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Word SaladNo citation, no reference to another neutral source, just a partisan snipe. Putting in the Palin list on the Word Salad page violates the neutrality policy of Wikipedia.Rabidwolfe (talk) 00:42, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Stop trying to add inaccurate information to this article. Trying to argue that Raymond Chen, who worked on the Windows Shell team during Windows 95's development, and has published a book that covers the subject, is "misinformed", is really fucking daft, and you should be ashamed of yourself for continuing to assert it after several months, even though you've been TOLD that YOU ARE WRONG. Leave the issue alone -- you aren't going to win this argument. Warren -talk- 14:12, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Can I interest you in a deletion?I see you created Category:Earth-sized Planets yesterday, to house Gliese 581 e. I think the category should be deleted, however, because "earth-sized" is a vague and unworkable classification. In the case of Gliese 581 e, it's not its size per se that astronomers have determined, but its mass, which is about 1.9 times the mass of earth. So even setting aside that size and mass measure two different things, how much larger or smaller can the planet be than earth to be "earth-sized"? I hope I can have your consent to delete this category; as you are the only author, if you consent I can speedy delete it. Otherwise I will proceed with a CFD. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 20:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
RollbackI have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:06, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Your NPWatcher applicationDear Aldaron, Thank you for applying for NPWatcher! You've been approved to use it. Before you run the program, please check the changelog on the application page to see if there is a newer release (or just add the main page (here) to your watchlist). Report any bugs or feature suggestion here. If you need help, feel free to contact me or join #wikimedia-npw. QuestionCan you put down the bad secret right now please? Bob.--76.224.114.105 (talk) 00:30, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Thank you!Thanks so much for the barnstar, Aldaron. Keep up the good work. Cheers, JNW (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC) Re:BarnstarThanks a lot for your appreciation! LeaveSleaves 13:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC) WarningWatch your back. User:IverTHPS —Preceding undated comment added 05:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC). About Solar flare articleI don't know the extend of your involvement in that article. I have left you a note in the image there that is up for deletion. For better I am pasting it here because it might be deleted. I have also made some minor clarification edits in the article.
You're welcome and Thank youI really appreciate the barn star. Have a good day. Landon1980 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Tricky subjectThanks for dropping by and expressing some opinions at Singular they. You may like to look at the article Referring expressions (a little below half way through). It's short! That article notes several kinds of ways languages refer to things. Here's a summary:
Absolutely all of these modes of reference are relevant to discussion of whether or when "singular" they can or should be used. Most of the debate about "singular" they is about a kind of reference—epicene—which the Referring expressions article doesn't mention, but the Oxford Dictionary and other sources do. For the sake of simplicity and brevity, some of us, over the course of several months, from sources, boiled the key issues at singular they down to: genericity, epicenity and indefiniteness. These three things are explained by three more things: distribution, quantification and (linguistic) variables. Geoffrey Pullum, a language guru, is on public record noting that "singular" they is much easier to use than to explain. But many linguistic articles have both described and explained the features of "singular" they (which is not normally singular at all). If you can offer a simpler description and a simpler explanation than what several of us and many sources have worked on, please feel free. If what we have offered is unclear to you, please specify whichever matters seem most hopelessly obscure. We'd love to clarify. A lot can be done using lambda calculus and discourse representation theory in a fairly short space, but I suspect that would make it less accessible, not more so. I'd also like to trim out a lot of unnecessary references from the bibliography and some of the unreliable or POV sources in the external links section. A good deal of the gender neutral language section neither describes nor explains much, or repeats things noted elsewhere. There's some other material that adds little but length to the article (imo), but exists because it was part of arriving at consensus. I can't personally remove that material without betraying a consensus I was party to. It would be good if you could find the time to work through the article in more detail. No problem if you can't. Everyone has many competing priorities. Cheers Alastair Haines (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC) Biggifying (some) appendices?the purpose of the {{refbegin}}, {{reflist}}, and similar tags is to reduce the size of reference sections that have become unwieldy. only more recently has it become customary to use the reduced font for almost all footnotes in that section. the practice has never been sanctioned for use by mos guidelines in other sections. --emerson7 18:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Welcome to WikiProject Space ColonizationHi, thanks for joining the WikiProject, I hope you'll stick around and help us provide better coverage of this subject on Wikipedia. What about space colonization interests you the most? Would you like to write new articles, improve existing ones, or do something outside article space? Wronkiew (talk) 22:23, 17 May 2009 (UTC) Would you be interested in joining this project? We need more editors who share a burden for rescuing promising editors who have gotten into serious trouble because of behavioral issues. IF (a fundamental condition!) they are interested in reforming and adapting to our standards of conduct, and are also willing to abide by our policies and guidelines, rather than constantly subverting them, we can offer to help them return to Wikipedia as constructive editors. Right now many if not most users who have been banned are still active here, but they are here as socks or anonymous IPs who may or may not be constructive. We should offer them a proper way to return. If you think this is a good idea, please join us. Abce2|AccessDenied 04:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC) Native Americans in the United StatesDear Aldaron, Because of vandalism by an IP, I had to revert some edits. Some of your edits were also affected. Can you work on the article again? Have a nice day! AdjustShift (talk) 18:27, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Lalande 21185Hi and thanks for your many cleanups of my contributions. We might have collided on this article. Please look and see that I haven't messed something up. I am currently searching for better references for the spurious or confirmed reports of planets around this star which is known by many other names in the literature.Aldebaran66 (talk) 17:38, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Zama17.<===Abhijeeth===> Hi Aaron please read the article. It has some problems. It does not make any sense. It says the "it is was the Romans who enjoyed superiority in the cavalry arm, unlike in most of his previous battles" in the top line then in the paragraph that i edited it says "At the outset of the battle, the superior Carthaginian cavalry swept aside their Roman counterparts and pursued them off the field— depriving Scipio of his entire body of cavalry." Finally in the last line it says "However, Scipio was able to rally his men and after driving off the Carthaginian cavalry with a surprise attack, returned in time to deliver a devastating blow to the rear of Hannibal's infantry line." Which as you can see does not make much sense. Please take a look. Abhijeeth (talk) 22:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC) Abhijeeth (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Script problems?I'm not sure how this happened. Plastikspork (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Orbital diagrams?Well I've only made that one animated and if I were to do it again I would definitely change a few things. Basic process:
I definitely wouldn't want to do this for a multi-planet system, as the configurations do not repeat themselves, and having multiple changes occurring all over the place would increase the size of each frame layer and hence the resulting filesize. In an ideal world I'd use the animation capabilities in SVG and save myself most of this hassle. Unfortunately in the real world this isn't particularly well supported. :-( Hope that helps! Icalanise (talk) 17:30, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: Exoplanet numbers?The counts should be the number of entries in the table. Note Wikipedia uses different criteria for determining whether an object should be included than the Extrasolar Planets Encyclopaedia, which is more liberal about the upper mass boundary. Wikipedia rules out objects more than 13 Jupiter masses, while EPE lists several such objects, so the tallies should not be the same. Whether the Wikipedia approach is the right one to take is another question. Icalanise (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
I fail to see the argument for changing the name of this article, as I have an English-language version of this game, and this is the name as stated on the box, and the name as stated on Rio Grande's website. Please tell me the rationale for changing it. kelvSYC (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Re: GabrielVelasquezAldaron, I suggest that if you want to talk to GabrielVelasquez you do so at his talk page. At present, since I'm not involved in the dispute, and since there is no way I could be regarded as a neutral third party given previous history (which I am not particularly keen to resurrect), I really do not believe it would be appropriate for me to make any contributions to this. Icalanise (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
Usurpation of de:User:AldaronHello, I confirm that I'd like to usurp de:User:Aldaron using de:User:AldaronToBe. — Aldaron • T/C 01:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Usurpation of wikt:de:User:AldaronHello, I confirm that I'd like to usurp wikt:de:User:Aldaron using wikt:de:User:AldaronToBe. — Aldaron • T/C 02:41, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Usurpation of fr:User:AldaronHello, I confirm that I'd like to usurp fr:User:Aldaron using fr:User:AldaronToBe. — Aldaron • T/C 03:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Usurpation of pt:User:AldaronHello, I confirm that I'd like to usurp pt:User:Aldaron using pt:User:AldaronToBe. — Aldaron • T/C 03:20, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Orbital elementsFor a RV-discovered planet, the orbital elements that can be determined are period, eccentricity, argument of periapsis, time of periapsis. (Plus the mass function). You can then derive semimajor axis and minimum mass from those. Usual convention for binary star orbits (and exoplanets) is a plane-of-sky convention: x-axis points North, y-axis points East and completing the right-handed coordinate system the z-axis points from the star towards Earth, though for some astrometric detections I have seen elements given with x-axis pointing West and y-axis pointing North. The orbital elements work as follows: Start with orbit in the x-y plane with periastron at positive x, rotate anticlockwise around z by the argument of periapsis, then rotate anticlockwise around x by the inclination, finally rotate anticlockwise around z by the longitude of the node. Longitude of the node is therefore the same as position angle of line of apsides. Icalanise (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC) Removing exoplanet names from articlesI see you that you're removing exoplanet names from alot of those exoplanet articles that Tyrogthekreeper and I added it. But exoplanet names came with citation from Wladimir Lyra's homepage Naming Exoplanets that was created on October 21, 2009, but it is not original research. The reason why you're removing exoplanet names from articles is that's because you're think that having exoplanet names in articles is not encyclopedic. What does the phrase nothing encyclopedic means? BlueEarth (talk | contribs) 22:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
About your signature...I know this may seem kinda trivial, but I'm just curious about how you managed to modify your signature to its current state. If it's too hard to explain, then just tell me and leave it at that. But if you can explain, feel free to post it to my talk page. Thank you for your time! Never mind, I figured it out. I forgot that I could do the same thing as when I learned to make the link to my talk page colorful. All I did was look at a post on your talk page where you replied to someone else's post on the edit page and see what you typed for what is shown in the section of the signature that is a link to your user page. If that didn't make any sense to you (which it most likely did, because I confused myself when I reread it), then in layman's terms, I looked at your signature in an "edit User talk:Aldaron (section)" page. Thanks anyway!
Non-SI density units in Planetbox character template?Perhaps I should have waited for more discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Astronomical objects. However, why is using non-SI density units a bigger problem than using units that many readers (as well as editors) can't grasp, and having a lot of values (as I have just found) that are off by a factor of 1000? WolfmanSF (talk) 05:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Spacefilght templateSorry, I just found your post above another on my talk page. I think that it would be good to use the template on things like the shuttle and Soyuz because they involve people traveling. I think if we were to use it on every one, we could be using it on everything from the Voyager missions to those of today. I'm all for using it, but I don't think that hundreds of things categorized as a current spaceflight would be a good idea. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
|
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
){kind=link}
