→My apologies :-): more |
CarolSpears (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 388: | Line 388: | ||
BTW, you can find out who is an admin and who is not by checking [[Special:Listusers]]. If they are an edmin then they have "(Administrator)" after their name. [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 05:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
BTW, you can find out who is an admin and who is not by checking [[Special:Listusers]]. If they are an edmin then they have "(Administrator)" after their name. [[User talk:Hesperian|Hesperian]] 05:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
||
:So it is one user on a mission. I guess it means he is a little bigger of a prick than others, for whatever that is worth. That great editor left a link for me that started this day off very well for me. |
|||
:There was a promise at one of the image contests to nominate every single gilbert and sullivan image that was available. Those contests have been interesting to look at when I take a break, but so are the recent uploads when they are not super smutty. |
|||
:I don't think that the reversions are displaying text that is less encumbered with violations than mine. -- [[User:CarolSpears|carol]] ([[User talk:CarolSpears|talk]]) 05:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:29, 20 June 2008
Archive
a citation call
I have been having a problem with some of my ways. The thing that is bothering me the most right now is that I have made citations to papers in which I only read the abstract of.
My instinct tells me to remove the access date from it and that will be more honest.
If you know what to do in this situation, can you tell me? If you don't know what to do, I would be happy if you made a call on it.
The citation formalities -- they were all hardcoded before the web was even imagined. Possibly, adding a url location to the existing databases everywhere that used them was or even is quite a challenge. -- carol (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think it should be ok if you leave the access data in. To be clear, do you mean the date you accessed the online abstract of the paper? If a url exists, access data should be included for the eventual day when that website moves or changes its structure, so that readers and editors know when you used that url so it can possibly be extracted from the internet archive. My sense is that it is best to give as much info as possible. Any one citation style (MLA, Chicago, etc.) is not endorsed by the Wikipedia MoS, so you're free to use whatever citation style you feel most comfortable with. The important thing is to make it consistent within the article, which you've done a great job at doing. Did that answer your question? --Rkitko (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, I am quite certain that I have gotten my volumes and issues mixed up -- perhaps consistently at least. It does answer my question, it makes sense and I am not happy with it. Thank you very much! (I had enough 'access' where I used to live to be able to write an article with only papers that I actually read.) -- carol (talk) 16:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well, do what makes you happy if it's reasonable. If providing access data is a bit more trouble than you want to deal with, then don't include it. I don't think it hurts anything if excluded. A determined editor or reader could always find the information from other citation data given. I sympathize with your difficulties in accessing journals. I no longer have free access to JSTOR, Proquest, etc. through an academic library. Until I go back to school, that probably won't change so I have to make frequent trips to nearby libraries (including some to your old stomping grounds in Michigan, I believe). --Rkitko (talk) 16:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- The library that I would have tried first is a little hidden from the rest of the world. Part of my job for a while was to copy the abstracts each month from the journals as the scientists I worked with requested them. It infuriates me that there are things here (wikipedia) that are being called 'from the government' when anyone who worked for the government could look at it and know it is not one of theirs. What area are you at? I had the feeling you were on the west coast, I don't know where that feeling came from. The snow photographs from there this year have been beautiful and more like when I was a child. I really despise being here, the situation that brought me here, some of the things that has happened and the situation that I found once I got here.
- I don't need to be happy with everything, in fact, that is usually not good. I do feel more comfortable with citing abstracts; it would be nice to know that there was something real in the paper also -- they are like advertisements somewhat, abstracts. When I was copying them, I started to lose a little respect for some of them (the journals) also. Nature's treatment of homeopathy in the late eighties was the exact example.
- Possibly! I used to live in Olympia, Washington. About 8 months ago I moved back to Ohio. I'm much happier to be here than when I was on the west coast, so I can perhaps understand a bit of how you feel. Regardless, let me know if there's anything else I can help with here. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
ping
User_talk:Hesperian#Humor_tax Gnangarra 15:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. —Moondyne click! 23:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- For things I didn't say? Or to provide opportunity to force pop-psychology cheez whiz? -- carol (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
No, for things you did say. You can pretend to be obscure, but the bottom line is that you've been engaging in ongoing trolling against Hesperian here and at Commons and your attacks are disruptive. If you wish your block to be reviewed by another administrator, feel free to use the {{unblock}} template. —Moondyne click! 23:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
- It is far more interesting to watch the tough ones get protected by the little fluffy kittens. I certainly wish I had thought to pack my micrometer along with a couple of books I miss -- I had no idea that the world and its participants would become of such fragility that a micrometer would be needed to measure strength. I have no problem giving the princess a break from such ruthless attacks.... -- carol (talk) 03:29, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.
block extended to 1 week for continuing the attack Gnangarra 03:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- You have been temporarily blocked from editing for disrupting Wikipedia by making personal attacks. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.
- How much actual productivity will a week of non-disruption acquire for the encyclopedia? More simply, what does the encyclopedia get from this? And please be clear on this; I suggest either a numbered or bulleted list of actual measurable things the encyclopedia gets perhaps articles (with estimated word counts), illustrations, something else I haven't considered yet? If I understand the 'mindset' behind the person and the puppets, there should be actual measurable stuff for the encyclopedia from this undisrupted time, or the blocks are just puppets pissing in the wind, up a rope, or in this sad little instance up a oddly shaped plant. -- carol (talk) 04:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Carol, another admin has blocked you from editing Wikipedia for one week. I have protected this page because you seem to be using it to continue with the same behaviour that led to your being blocked in the first place and if you continue like this you are going to end up being blocked for much longer. I can see you're frustrated and annoyed but my suggestion is that you take a few days off, come back after your block has expired and when you do, focus on content. No personal comments about other users, no personal attacks on others - just focus on the content of the articles that you are working on. If you continue in this vein with snarkiness, personal attacks, veiled or not, and so on, you going to be blocked again. If you want to discuss this, you can email me or another admin by using the "email this user" function but you won't be able to use this page until your block expires. Thanks. Sarah 05:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Moondyne gave you instructions at the start of this section for using the unblock template to ask to be unblocked, but you won't be able to use that template now due to the protection. If you want to request an unblock or for another administrator to review this situation, you may send an email to the unblock mailing list unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org stating:
- your username,
- the reason you were blocked,
- the name of the blocking admin,
- the reason you think your block is unfair.
Another uninvolved admin will respond to you and review this case. Sarah 05:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Calm down and come to Talk:GIMP and explain with other things than pure zeal why the section should be removed. You risk being blocked if you continue to remove or revert. -- Sverdrup (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- How come I risk being blocked for reverting but you don't? Also, I saw no discussion of including the section. -- carol (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The section was removed with a nonsense comment, so I asked you why and you haven't said why. -- Sverdrup (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hadjaha is not nonsense -- except that it kind of is. -- carol (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry, but for me it is. -- Sverdrup (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hadjaha is not nonsense -- except that it kind of is. -- carol (talk) 18:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- I have written on the talk page several times before and after you suggested it here. I can see no discussion of the inclusion of the comparison and I am not going to search for that. btw, do you know how to convert xwd files into png? -- carol (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well-sourced expansion of the article doesn't need to be motivated on the talk page.. The comparison with PS starts already in the lead section, where it says "It is often used as a free software replacement for Adobe Photoshop, the most widely used bitmap editor in the printing and graphics industries; however, it is not designed to be a Photoshop clone." It appears you disagree with comparing PS and GIMP, but such opinions don't have anything to do with what should be in the article or not, we have lots of sources doing the comparison. -- Sverdrup (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- If my memory is working -- the release of gimp-1.2 was the hadjaha release, Mon, 25 Dec 2000.[1] and it is working! -- carol (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- There was no discussion about the inclusion of it. If you would like to discuss the inclusion of the section, that would be a better place to start then claiming it stays because of no discussion.
- If my memory is working -- the release of gimp-1.2 was the hadjaha release, Mon, 25 Dec 2000.[1] and it is working! -- carol (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- Well-sourced expansion of the article doesn't need to be motivated on the talk page.. The comparison with PS starts already in the lead section, where it says "It is often used as a free software replacement for Adobe Photoshop, the most widely used bitmap editor in the printing and graphics industries; however, it is not designed to be a Photoshop clone." It appears you disagree with comparing PS and GIMP, but such opinions don't have anything to do with what should be in the article or not, we have lots of sources doing the comparison. -- Sverdrup (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- The section was removed with a nonsense comment, so I asked you why and you haven't said why. -- Sverdrup (talk) 18:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
- This is such a broken internet -- bogus emails are all over the place. I just found one that gives the appearence that Marc Lehmann knew about the inclusion of the option of the pdb into the gimp-perl plug-in -- he didn't; I suspect that he would have written the things that the pdb does himself. They started this history modification shortly after the web site me and my team designed went online; the mail was about how the original developers did not want to steal photoshop -- that letter seriously changed. The linux people I knew were seriously too proud to steal software (at least for use). -- carol (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism removal
Thanks for clearing the poo off my user page. Always appreciated! Matt Deres (talk) 12:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Dendrosenecio resource
Here is the name of a beautiful book on biogeography that has a few pages on the Dendrosenecio that could help you get a more general background to the article. It is an inexpensive book, but, also, as you are living in America it should be available through interlibrary loan. Biogeography: An Ecological and Evolutionary Approach by C. Barry Cox, Peter D. Moore, ISBN: 978-0865427785. They are fascinating plants, well known to anyone with an interest in biogeography and island biogeography in particular. However, I am rather more interested in viral pathogens and the flora of West Africa. --Blechnic (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
DYK for Senecio angulatus
--BencherliteTalk 10:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Senecio vernalis
Interesting background. A spăla means "to wash" and a spălăci means "to lose one's initial colour, to become more faded or discoloured (from washing or sunlight)". So spălăcioasa we might say means "tending to fade". It's feminine, like most Romanian flower names (except roses, lilies, lilacs and snowdrops, which are masculine). Another name for it is cruciuliţă - "little cross" (like in necklaces).
It's all explained here if you'd like to cite a source. Also, if you're looking for more common names in Romanian, check the box right beneath where you search so it looks through the whole text, and then hopefully you can figure it out from the results, but if you need help or want to know the meaning, you can ask me. Biruitorul (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- That is awesome! Thank you very much! It seems fitting that roses be masculine -- one of my favorite gardening personalities called the cultivated varieties 'Yellow spot on a stick' a modern common name that I have personally adopted for them and that truthfully tells of their problems. I love the naturally occurring species of them though; they are inscrutable and persistent without taking over the landscape they live on; at least, that is how they were where I lived for several decades. The challenge of writing articles that are cited and not invented by the author has been rewarding -- simply, there is no way that I could make this stuff up and I really appreciate that url! -- looking now... carol (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Forsskaolea tenacissima
--BorgQueen (talk) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages
Hi, I've been doing cleanup on disambiguation pages, and I've noticed that you've been involved in creating disambiguation pages. Cacalia, for example. I'm not sure if you're aware of this, so I wanted to point you to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Specifically, I noticed that you've been adding references to your disambiguation pages, which are actually not supposed to be there, as disambiguation pages shouldn't have any external links. If you have external links which may be helpful to future editors, they can be placed inside comments, or on the talk page. While this is not any sort of terrible violation of Wikipedia's policies, it's still best not to do, especially as other editors will eventually find your pages and remove the references. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- The references started when the disambiguation pages were being removed due to articles being moved from the scientific name to the common name. I put the references there to protect from that happening. It would be nice if the editors could work on moving articles from common names to articles with the species names before worrying about (granted, such a big problem) having references on disambiguation pages. Is having references a bigger problem than having all of those articles with the common name, btw? I am curious which of the wikipedia guidelines is more important. Perhaps the editors could spend this time ranking their own guidelines for what should logically come first when cleaning up articles. Such a numbered list would be helpful to new and still learning editors like me. -- carol (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Carol, I don't see any evidence that Cacalia is based on the same type as Adenostyles, nor that Cacalia is a nomen rejicendum. If this is the case, it means that Cacalia still contains species (whether or not they are in Wikipedia), and it should never have been turned into a "disambiguation" page.--Curtis Clark (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, do I thank you for answering the messages left by others? Second of all, the reference was provided to show that I did not invent the information. Third, do you have a prioritized list of wikipedia policy that I might peruse? It seems to me that any vessel, corporation, group -- whatever the word for the pack would be, should by now have a list ranked by importance. Where some policy is more important than others and still other policy is one of those impotent signs... -- carol (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Carol, I have your talk page on my watchlist because you have damaged articles in the past because or your lack of understanding of the rules of botanical nomenclature. I'll leave to others your misuse of disambiguation pages, but you have yet to convince me that you didn't make an enormous error by doing away with an entire genus in Wikipedia just because the species you happen know about were moved to another genus. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy; it has to do with your lack of understanding of botanical nomenclature, as evidenced by your inability to know whether the references you cited actually answer my question.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, hmm. Maybe you should check with the person who started the article to see how they feel about me doing away with the entire genus -- although, whoever that person is should consider him or herself lucky to have the subject watched over so well by the parent group! About damage -- there is in my mind perhaps, some damage that I caused (accidentally of course) but just to make sure we are "on the same
pagearticle, let me know which ones have you so watchful now so that I know what to avoid or to not repass. -- carol (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)- See below.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, hmm. Maybe you should check with the person who started the article to see how they feel about me doing away with the entire genus -- although, whoever that person is should consider him or herself lucky to have the subject watched over so well by the parent group! About damage -- there is in my mind perhaps, some damage that I caused (accidentally of course) but just to make sure we are "on the same
- Carol, I have your talk page on my watchlist because you have damaged articles in the past because or your lack of understanding of the rules of botanical nomenclature. I'll leave to others your misuse of disambiguation pages, but you have yet to convince me that you didn't make an enormous error by doing away with an entire genus in Wikipedia just because the species you happen know about were moved to another genus. This has nothing to do with Wikipedia policy; it has to do with your lack of understanding of botanical nomenclature, as evidenced by your inability to know whether the references you cited actually answer my question.--Curtis Clark (talk) 23:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- Apparently you're involved in some edit conflict between other editor(s) regarding what you're doing with disambiguation pages. I'm really not aware of the details of it. As to the importance of our various guidelines, there's not likely any overall agreement on that, other than the fact that our policy pages(such as WP:V, WP:NPOV) are more important than our guideline pages (the manual of style pages, for example). As a new and still learning editor, you are not expected to fully understand all of our policies and guidelines (in fact, probably almost none of us fully understand all of our policies and guidelines), but instead the idea is that you do your best and figure things out as you go along, and if you make a mistake, someone will tell you, hopefully nicely, and point you to the applicable policy. You might want to talk to people on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages) about the edit conflict you're having regarding disambiguation pages, if that might help. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- One day, I might be one of those impotent people who knows what policy to cite when. In the meanwhile, if I could see a list which ranks policy by either importance or impotence, it would help me to understand 1)what is the right thing to do and 2)when something works to make another policy work, should it be changed? -- carol (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't believe there is an overall list anywhere which ranks our policies and guidelines in order of importance. There is Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, which might help. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 23:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- One day, I might be one of those impotent people who knows what policy to cite when. In the meanwhile, if I could see a list which ranks policy by either importance or impotence, it would help me to understand 1)what is the right thing to do and 2)when something works to make another policy work, should it be changed? -- carol (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
- First of all, do I thank you for answering the messages left by others? Second of all, the reference was provided to show that I did not invent the information. Third, do you have a prioritized list of wikipedia policy that I might peruse? It seems to me that any vessel, corporation, group -- whatever the word for the pack would be, should by now have a list ranked by importance. Where some policy is more important than others and still other policy is one of those impotent signs... -- carol (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Cacalia
I'll start by saying that I don't have the necessary references at hand to clear this up, so I'll be talking about general principles and hope that you will be able to see your references in a more appropriate light.
Botanical nomenclature has as one of its most important foundations the principle of priority, which can be simplified as "earlier names have dibs". Cacalia was named by Linnaeus, in Species Plantarum. That work stands as the beginning of botanical nomenclature, and, with exceptions, names in Species Plantarum have priority over later names (I'll return to the exceptions). So, absent any other evidence, Cacalia has priority.
What does this mean? Every taxon (species, genus, family, whatever) has a "type", a taxon of lower rank, and ultimately an actual specimen, that the name is based on. So somewhere out there is a type species, and a type specimen, of Cacalia. Let's say it's Cacalia alpina L. (that species was first described in Species Plantarum, and although it isn't necessarily the type species, it's from the same publication). Again with exceptions, Cacalia alpina (or whatever the actual type species) will always be in the genus Cacalia. It can't be transferred to another genus, because it is Cacalia—it is the "name-bearing element". Other species of Cacalia, even Linnaean ones, can be transferred, but the type species never can.
Now for the exceptions: Some Linnaean names no longer have type specimens, and are so vaguely described that it is impossible to determine what taxon they should apply to. There are some other reasons to reject Linnaean names, but they are also arcane, an in any case the relevant literature should allude to them.
So just because some of the species of Cacalia have been transferred to other genera, that doesn't mean that Cacalia no longer exists. You are the one with the references, and perhaps you can ascertain whether Cacalia L. has been rejected for one of those few arcane reasons, but, lacking that, there is still a genus Cacalia (although Wikipedia may not currently have any articles about its species), and the current Cacalia page is illogical. This has nothing to do with the politics of Wikipedia, the politics of plant taxonomists, or the opinion of the person who created the article. Either Cacalia L. was rejected according to one of the few exceptions allowed in the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature, or else it still exists, for at least its one type species.--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I don't understand whether the name is used or not, but I think it has been rejected as a genus name according to the IAPT. See Propsal to Reject the Name Cacalia L. (Compositae: Senecioneae), by Gerhard Wagenitz, Taxon, Vol. 44(3), (Aug., 1995), pp. 445-446 and Report of the Committee for Spermatophyta: 46 by R. K. Brummitt, Taxon, Vol. 47(2), (May, 1998), pp. 441-444. When an entire genus name is done away with, it can only in one way, via the botanical code, and it is then written up in these articles in Taxon published by the IAPT. Curtis, can you read these and clarify how Wikipedia should handle these names? --Blechnic (talk) 03:52, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- I tossed all my paper copies of Taxon when I lost my lab in the Bio Sci dept. But these things are voted on at the International Botanical Congress, of which there have been St. Louis and Vienna since then. Each code has a section "Nomina generica conservanda et rejicienda" ("Conserved and rejected generic names"), and neither contains Cacalia. And Cacalia napaeifolia DC. is used in an example in the Vienna Code. So it seems from what I can find that the proposal didn't pass. I'll see if I can track down the articles at the library.
- If the genus were rejected, the current article is not far off-base, as long as the disambiguation page tag were removed, since it is not a disambiguation page. Individual Cacalia species names could be redirects to the currently accepted names.--Curtis Clark (talk) 05:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- Okay, I was able to find more information online. Cacalia is indeed a nomen rejiciendum [2]. Its type, C. alpina L., is correctly Adenostyles alpina (L.) Bluff & Fingerh. The rejection evidently has something to do with its lectotypification. I'll modify the article to reflect this, and remove the dab template.--Curtis Clark (talk) 15:40, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- You did not clarify whether Cacalia no longer existed as a genus, or whether it was just these species that had been moved. It's not clear to me that you knew the answer to that.
- You misapplied a disambiguation template. Disambiguation pages are normally to disambiguate between articles that might have been called the same thing. And, most importantly, Cacalia needs the references, and dab pages cannot have external references.
As it stands now, the article accomplishes exactly what it's supposed to accomplish.--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:08, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
- What my novice eye saw from the information that was available online (starting with the GRIN url you pasted) it seems as if the genus still exists but contains no species. ITIS made it look that way also and Missouri Botanical Garden was kind of confusing because they list the type species still without the synonym, and there was more but my computer crashed (a rare and notable event in itself) -- mostly I thank you for cleaning that up and clarifying what seems to best described as information which is in transition at this moment in time. Heh, and it seems that the disambiguation happened elsewhere. -- carol (talk) 17:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Erysimum vs wallflower
The article should be at Erysimum. I don't remember why the move seemed like a good idea at the time, but it was ages before any standard was set for plant articles. Stan (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
- The way I know to do this is to delete the page Erysimum and then move Wallflower there and then send the redirection of Wallflower to Wallflower (disambiguation). If you put the delete template on Erysimum there is a good possibility that it will be deleted quickly (something about a request by the person who made the article....) Or, there might be another way.... -- carol (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I just went ahead and fixed it up myself. I left Wallflower to redirect only to Erysimum, the other items in Wallflower (disambiguation) seemed much more obscure. Stan (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- I think what got me started was when I was working through some images at commons and was following wiki articles and information for the species Cheiranthus and a quick search on the word "wallflower" the first obviously floral url in the results was for Wallflower Cheiranthus allionii. The genus Cheiranthus might be a disappearing genus like Cacalia. For as messy as all the names are (both scientific and common) for all of these species, and considering that human desire to have a name or a mark that lives on, things are not so terribly messy as they could be considering the three to four hundred years spent making it, huh? -- carol (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
- At the commons, I have been Categorizing the redirection pages. Some of them really do have literature published under two or more of their names so, it makes some sense and it actually looks kind of good -- commons:Category:Dendrosenecio and commons:Category:Senecio being the example I think I can type without checking it.... Only a few of the Dendrosenico started life as that. It is kind of a fun mess to clean and so far (if I stay away from the fruits). -- carol (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Emotional regurgitation
There's a reply to your questions here. Mehmet Karatay (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Subularia monticola
--BorgQueen (talk) 07:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
re:heh
The page works fine for me, as far as I can tell your using old software there, I don't know if it is old or not, but here is a screenie I took
I'm using IE 8 on Vista. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roketjack (talk • contribs) 13:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- You did see that I used some format stuff there? The multi-column template. Do you like that space that exists between the section heading and the list?
- I have no problem admitting that my browser might not work correctly -- I built it myself from people who are writing it now. It is definitely not some safe product, tested by people who know better than mere users, etc. Except that the change you made doesn't look good in your screenshot either and it seems that you did not notice or are unfamiliar with the layout templates.
- Is IE 8 broken also and that accounts for the big space between the section heading and where the list starts? I have my ideas about this, I ask that question because I am curious about yours. -- carol (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
re:Templates with requests for references and citations
I appreciate your concerns for the request for citation and references concern for template, but why is it the responsibilty of the issuer to remove the template when a person who has a reference could easily remove it? My thinking is that the person who has source removes the template without issue and everyone moves on. Just a thought. Chris (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
- For so many reasons. Evaluation by the number of edits being one. It is somewhat easy to use software to make a lot of edits when actual research takes some time. Being able to use software to mark a page is not as difficult as being a human being who checks to see 1) if the request was fulfilled and 2)if the citation is valid. Another way to look at this is that I have some respect for the person who put the tag on the page; if your input is to be valuable, what is the way to make it that way? -- carol (talk) 06:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
valued image logo
Carol, I notice that you reverted my removal of the valued image logo from the Featured pictures candidates page. I have nothing against the image; LadyOfHats does great work. However, this one is simply not eligible to be a Featured Picture on English Wikipedia, since it doesn't illustrate an article (and isn't meant to). I don't understand your "weak and sad" comment; it's just housekeeping, removing an ineligible nomination. I'm not going to edit war over this, but I think it should be removed again. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 07:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Some 'house-cleaning' happens more quickly than others, and you cleaned an example of how some images do not work and also how some systems are failing to function properly. That isn't the same as actually cleaning the house now, is it. More like dusting a shelf for a snap shot. Wouldn't it be more 'encylopedic' to look to find and replace images in articles? Kind of like cleaning the mansion instead of the one page? -- carol (talk) 07:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
- Ah, yes. I see the same one you do for the Picture of the Day, Image:Douglas MacArthur lands Leyte1.jpg. It doesn't seem to be a repeat, though. It was a Commons Picture of the Day in March, but this is the first time its been English Wikipedia Picture of the Day.
- You also asked, on my talk page, "How come you did not answer the question I asked here". If you mean the question about consensus, I apologize, I took it as a rhetorical question. The policy is Wikipedia:Consensus. Hope that helps.--ragesoss (talk) 15:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Done. As always, feel free to suggest more moves like that when you bump into them. And great work on your tireless editing as of late.
Also, you had left me a message at User talk:BotanyBot about links to Linnaeus. Could you elaborate? A bot could certainly update links, but if the redirect works, it isn't necessary to fix it. Unless perhaps there was preparation for a disambiguation page or another good reason. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for doing that so quickly! And about the bot request, perhaps I am too tidy minded about web pages (not so in real life) but my instinct was to make them all point to the proper page. So, if it is no big deal then it is no big deal then -- I can get over the 'instinct' eventually, probably. Well, more than 250 links to that one -- I guess I can get over it. Thanks again! (btw, I was napping when you did that....) -- carol (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Einstein photo
Do you really believe that the file history was faked, or were you just joking? — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-17 13:30Z
- In the 1980s, I was studying (I think -- my majors changed often in the early years there) radio, tv and film in college. One summer I read all of one authors works and decided to change my major from this to physics. This was a huge jump for me and when making this jump I 'put on the uniform' which I perceived would help my brain realign for the new kind of studies and homework. There were three things it seemed to me that distinguished a physics major from all the others. Escher, Einstein and Pink Floyd. Pink Floyd was 'out' as this was the stuff my parents were listening to and that attribute outweighs all others. I can't remember if it was me or my mom who had the door size poster of Einstein -- it was me who had the books. This paragraph is an attempt to explain the reason those category were a magnate to me at the commons. I didn't stop being a physics major, I just ran out of money and learned that I really prefer some of the mathematics over the physics, especially after what I learned in thermodynamics -- when they made a "science" out of the 30/70 rule. I am still reeling with disappointment at how that science now has almost no resemblance to the incredible beauty that is classic mechanics; where the human animal discovered a precise language that was almost perfectly descriptive and very difficult to abuse.
- That image was not there. I joke but not about things like that. It isn't even that funny -- in fact, I don't find it funny at all. Here is my question to you. Is uploading and getting an image into Featured Picture status such a good thing that there would be such Users who only upload images that can be entered into it? There is at least one User name who in the 6 to 8 months I was watching FP without involvement which did not exist. Is it a good thing to find and upload an image that achieves FP status or is it a bad thing that only special/certain users can suffer the ordeal of? Or are the 'good enough' people such with a special understanding of the darker details of how the public mechanisms are being used. Or something else I haven't considered?
- Do you think that because I am unable to prove this (that it is my experience with the files and my life experience are all that I have to 'prove' things with) means that it didn't happen? I admit, my memories are not perfect. This is a really simple case though. I made a list of images I would like to have prints of and that Einstein image would have been considered had it been there.
- What would be the joke in such a claim? The joke of the rock at commons featured pictures is very funny to me. Clearly a joke and everyone actually seemed to enjoy it. Is establishing a fake user for every dedicated real user who wants to be involved on many levels -- is that a joke also? That kind of joke would only be funny for a few and possibly not funny for very long. I have a sense of humor; for example, I thought that this image of the Emu was funny. The university that I didn't graduate from is EMU. I think the message from the time it was nominated at commons quality images was a joke that is turning around on the jokers. My sense of humor is such that if the image was nominated about me, the nominator had no idea what he was making fun of -- my laugh was at the attempt and it is a great photograph! Knowing what I have accomplished and the people who were there actually helping; it is not so much a single pride in myself that I have but one of an involvement in a damn good set of accomplishments. I don't think that jokes which rely on other people having problems are funny, but that is just me perhaps. There seems to be a whole industry built on such stuff. There is so much in this world that is funny without being at the expense of peoples integrity, I question the mentality of those who benefit from such humor and probably they are not ever going to have an ability to lead.
- Can you tell me what is funny about making a bogus file history or uploading bogus images to web sites which are supposed to be credible? It just fails on the humor meter for me and it scores high on the "in real life I am pathetic" meter. Personally, my money problems have almost always been imposed on me and usually by people less capable of the accomplishment of the task than me. That is not that funny either -- perhaps it is to you or others though.
- Oh, and here is another thought, I have no idea if it is related or not, but it seems to be. If the women who were close to me had the single goal of making men look weak (and it could be argued that this was going on with several of them) does that do anything to make women look more appealing? It makes both genders look equally devolved and I can say this confidently from the view I have had of this kind of crap.
- If you would like a tour of the archives and see the images that were not funny that have been nominated in the last six months or so (since Thanksgiving last year) perhaps you would find it funny and the joksters can get whatever it was that inspired them to upload the images.
- And, yeah, here is something that is not funny. My money problems were caused by people who comparitivly had no money problems and there was always a woman around demonstrating the weakness of men. Yawn -- do you have any suggestion on how to get rid of the slutty or whorish women (who benefit from the weakness of men) and the weak men? -- carol (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
- I also went for physics, hated thermo, and finished the degree wishing I had gone into math instead. As for the rest of your reply, I would rather not go off on so many tangents. Whether someone is slutty, whorish, strong, or weak in your eyes is the result of their free choice and your perception; you should not let your perception of them affect your life - instead give them as much attention as you think they should get: none. But I digress... whether or not the file history is fake is irrelevant to FPC. We could just delete the file and reupload it with a fresh new real history connected with it. As for this whole situation, there are four possibilities: the file history is fake and you believe it is because of past memories (irrational belief on your part); the file history is not fake but you believe it is because of past memories (irrational belief on your part); you're joking and wanting attention; you're serious and wanting attention (again, irrational belief). I have no experience with delusional people so I can't say for sure whether you should seek medical help, but I would still suggest it. I wouldn't go so far as to call it schizophrenia, maybe just a treatable delusional disorder, but again I am a novice to that area. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-18 19:43Z
- I am only delusional enough to know that I cannot prove that the file history is wrong and I know that the 'donning of the physics' uniform/stereotype is not evidence of anything with the exception that perhaps it can be understood that I really did look at those files with an eye for reprintable images of Einstein and a whole slew of topically similar images that were uploaded and also cleaned and renovated and uploaded by me from the same while. Is it delusional that I know I cannot prove it? The women in question did not bring their 'own men' into the collegic soup then, they just grabbed at the ones who were around me. Slut and whore are interesting words that can be applied to many situations. Employment, doing a really good job on something out of love or for pleasure is kind of slutty. Doing the minimum would be kind of whorelike -- and other examples which are not so sexual as the terms were originally created to describe.
- "Doctor, they think I am schizophrenic because I looked for an image and it wasn't there then they provided one and said it was there. Unfortunately, I know the software that can do this to the file system and have written such simple scripts myself. Can I be treated for this?" Do you think that is sufficient to fix what is bothering me?
Oh cool, there are a few more there now! Image:Einstein 1921 by F Schmutzer.jpg Image:Niels Bohr Albert Einstein by Ehrenfest.jpg I stick by my claim that they are wrong file histories and that it is not the best that wikipedia has to offer. See commons:Category:Einstein where you can see the thumbs and the file sizes, I looked there for images. I remember mostly the disappointment. Is it delusional to know what the software can do? -- carol (talk) 20:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I think you meant commons:category:albert Einstein. Is it possible you made a similar mistake back then? Isn't it also possible that those images were on another page that you happened to miss or that for some reason the database screwed up the display of the images on that occasion? You should check out the version history after that time to see if anything turns up related to that. I still say you are acting irrationally for holding beliefs based on poor evidence, and am still not convinced that you are not doing this for attention. — BRIAN0918 • 2008-06-19 04:28Z
It might be easier...
...if you just got the admin tools so you could do certain things on your own (like moving pages around to reflect correct taxonomy, etc.). I'd be more than happy to nominate you.--SB_Johnny | talk 01:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the thought and I will consider it. The problem is then that the current admin uses the tools for what? To bully new contributors? To write 'dictates' that new contributors must follow so that they can paste links to the written dictates as they are bullying new contributors?
- If I acquire the permissions to delete the pages so that the files can be moved and the histories retained, what will the currently active admin who wrote the dictates and pasted that writing so that I would follow their carefully thought about guidelines do with their suddenly freed up time?
- There is an interesting situation at the commons right now. All of the images that get marked with a template that says that they need a category are being put into a category by date. I have no idea who decided to change things to be that way. I actually enjoyed manually categorizing images that were in the one big category together as it was and looked forward to doing that again sometime. I learned a lot about things that I am not always interested in enough to look at myself. The point of mentioning that here and now is this, I am kind of interested in seeing the people who decided to file things that way actually do the work with it. I have had jobs (employment) where decisions were made by nameless and faceless people who were not there to see how their decisions sucked at implementation time. I have had other jobs where really good teams of people were split up or the layout changed and the group working with it were not as good as they were before the change. No responsibility was assigned to the people who changed things and the people who broke up a good working team. And the terms of my employment, to do this one job and work with these restrictions and the goal -- that same goal was seemingly not shared by the people making the decisions.
- So, when I have permission to do this stuff and start to do it, what do the other people who had the permission do with their time here? This is what I am going to be thinking about. -- carol (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, hmmm. While I don't follow the admin logs on WP very closely (way too many logs per
day hourminute!), on the other projects I work on most admins spend most of their time doing simple maintenance tasks. Some admins are bullies, some bullies are admins, etc.... but the policies are written by the community as a whole (though I agree that Wikipedia can be alarmingly "policy-rich" due to the sheer size of the community and project). - I guess what I had in mind for what you could productively use them for is to bring articles into compliance with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora), and similar efforts. Since you're the one methodically going through herbs and such, it would make sense for you to have the option to "move-over-redirect" and or perform history merges (I don't do too much of that these days because chasing down and fixing 10,000 double-redirects isn't my idea of a good time). Similarly, you could move images from Wikipedia to commons and take care of the deletion on this side afterwards.
- Might be a rough ride now though, since you've apparently gained some negative attention on the admin noticeboards. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:34, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Well, hmmm. While I don't follow the admin logs on WP very closely (way too many logs per
Copyright problems
Hello. Concerning your contribution, Agrostis gigantea, please note that Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images obtained from other web sites or printed material, without the permission of the author(s). This article or image appears to be a direct copy from http://www.illinoiswildflowers.info/grasses/plants/redtop.htm. As a copyright violation, Agrostis gigantea appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Agrostis gigantea has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.
If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:
- If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Agrostis gigantea and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
- If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Agrostis gigantea with a link to where we can find that note.
- If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Agrostis gigantea.
However, for textual content, you may simply consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- You could perhaps do something extremely productive here, instead of protecting from the idea that there might be someone who claims copyvio, check the mathematics on Unlimited Register Machine as that was not copied from a book or web page and I have no idea of the accuracy. -- carol (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear
Thought you might like to know about this thread: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Copyright violations by CarolSpears on Main page. Hesperian 05:03, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- As I understand it, "Oh dear" is short for "Oh dear me". I would never dream of calling you "dear", nor anyone else of either gender whom I barely know. Hesperian 06:16, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Here it is exchanged between little old ladies and most recently (in the 90s) between sisters. Heh, that was an A dair dear.
- Oh, dear [me]! What TenOfAllTrades has not learned is the meaning of sarcasm. My experience is that had you vandalized articles as an anonymous IP with copyvios, it would be reverted and you wouldn't even get a slap on the wrist, since no one would check to see whether they were copyvios and anons generally get a bye on vandalism. Admins can get a bit touchy (it's not an easy job when done right, and also not an easy job when done wrong, for different reasons), but it's yet another data point in the "Wikipedia is hostile towards editors" curve.--Curtis Clark (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Copyvios
I fully accept there was no intent to deceive - the careful documentation of sources shows that - but you cannot do that. It opens Wikipedia to lawsuits, particularly if the material goes onto the mainpage, and puts all your contributions into doubt. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Is there a link to the lawsuit that made so many admin so in a quandary? It is so much easier to repair specific problems that really did cause a problem than it is to repair the perception of future problems. Also, perhaps you could help by checking the mathematics on Unlimited Register Machine. -- carol (talk) 19:29, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Rewriting
Hi! I was passing via an article of yours and saw you had some trouble with rewriting information from external websites. This can sometimes be hard to do, putting things "in my own words". If you like, I could look at helping with rewriting? Two heads are better than one! --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 12:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- It is wikipedia, and the way I understand it, you can do anything you want to; including making pages to complain and possibly do nothing. I am still of the mind that not citing references just gets that stupid template pasted on what are otherwise good articles and citing references gets good articles deleted. It is perhaps a situation of seeing the dust speck in someone elses eye and not seeing the log that is in the eye of the critic -- but I have no way to prove this nor any inspiration to. -- carol (talk) 19:23, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- Aw, but I like snarks! :-) I'm looking at these articles (the ones User:Shoemaker's Holiday originally mentioned):
- Senecio congestus
- Senecio angulatus
- Forssakaolea tenacissima (I think he gave the wrong title; this page has never existed?) [That would be Forsskaolea tenacissima. Hesperian 11:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)]
- Agrostis gigantea
- Subularia monticola
- If you think I should poke at anything else, please just drop me a message; I'm trying to spend more time editing articles than wandering around looking at things, so a To-Do list would suit me fine. :-) --tiny plastic Grey Knight ⊖ 11:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Oh my, a little Martin Gardner at the beginning of a new day. I would really like to keep you around! -- carol (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Aw, but I like snarks! :-) I'm looking at these articles (the ones User:Shoemaker's Holiday originally mentioned):
101
Carol, I have just been informed that you are I are on good terms. As I am largely devoid of social insight myself, I must defer to those lucky souls who are blessed with perspicacity. I can only assume that we have become friends very gradually, by stealth, so that even I didn't notice. What a jolly nice surprise. You'll correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyhow, this state of affairs imposes a burden upon us. As your friend, it apparently falls to me to harangue you further on the subject of copyright, plagiarism and original research, in the hope that your future contributions will not suffer the fatal flaw of some of your previous. I suspect that I will succeed only in patronising you, and making a pedant of myself. Nonetheless I am required to try:
Each of your contributions is required to be an original expression of unoriginal information: i.e. what s/he said, but in Carol's words. You've got the unoriginal information bit nailed: the information you insert can invariably be traced back to a source that said it first. But some of your contributions are not original expression; in some cases, you have copied, verbatim or nearly so, long phrases or even entire paragraphs, directly from your source. This is not acceptable. You are required to glean the meaning of what you read, then use your own creative processes to express that meaning.
In practice this can be difficult, especially if the material is highly technical, and especially if you don't fully comprehend the material you're quoting from. There is really only one way to say that a plant has pinnatifid leaves, so the fact that a source uses the word "pinnatifid" doesn't mean you can't use it too. Furthermore, when the material is highly technical, there may be situations where you really have to copy a three or four word phrase verbatim, because there simply is no way to rephrase it without running a significant risk of misrepresenting the source. There is, however, a threshold, beyond which copying become irresponsible and unethical. On the wrong side of that threshold, you're effectively passing off other people's creative writing as your own.
There you have it; end of rant; have a nice day.
Hesperian 13:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I really did not enjoy the experience with Cherimoya and whatever was going on with Celery at the same while. It is interesting though, that I do not have the sense that I am on bad terms with anyone -- there are some start up users whose start up has an interesting timing to it and if there was any sense of it being a real person, there might be some bad terms there. I don't want to waste a lot of time fighting fiction, I would really like to see the fiction removed from what should be a great place for real people.
- btw, I asked at commons and I will ask you -- how long do these administrative wikified gang rapes last? One real life ant (species unknown) was able to actually hurt me last summer; the recent events here -- 10 little pricks or 1000 little pricks; it is just unwarrented tickling for no real reason? -- carol (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- You can end it now by going to AN/I and saying "sorry folks; didn't realise there was a problem with the way I was contributing; it won't happen again." Or you can end it in an hour by making a few more flippant comments until someone hits the block button. If you don't like either of those options, your best bet is to keep your mouth shut, cross your fingers, go edit the encyclopedia (preferably focussing on rephrasing the material under discussion) and wait for everyone to get bored. It could be a few days. Hesperian 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- P.S. Sorry about the ant bite. Hesperian 00:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- You can end it now by going to AN/I and saying "sorry folks; didn't realise there was a problem with the way I was contributing; it won't happen again." Or you can end it in an hour by making a few more flippant comments until someone hits the block button. If you don't like either of those options, your best bet is to keep your mouth shut, cross your fingers, go edit the encyclopedia (preferably focussing on rephrasing the material under discussion) and wait for everyone to get bored. It could be a few days. Hesperian 00:35, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
These type of copyright violations are a bannable offense
I am assuming good faith that you didn't previously really understand the policy, as others have said and explained above.
However, now that it's been explained to you, I would like to ask if you do understand it, and if you are willing to cooperate in identifying what parts of your edits have fit into the general pattern of having been very loosely modified after copying out of other sources like that.
This is a very serious issue. Those who do this sort of thing and don't agree to stop doing it and help fix what they've done are usually banned from editing in the future. There's already a thread up on ANI about doing so with you.
If you understand the gravity of the situation here and are willing to help undo the damage, please say so.
Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
- I like bananas. I think that the species and genus articles should be separated from the fruit article though. -- carol (talk) 00:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I like sarcasm as much as the next fellow. But if you keep this up, today may well be the last day you ever edit Wikipedia on that account.
- If you really want to stop editing Wikipedia and would prefer to go into Comedy, the next round of "Last Comic Standing" auditions will be coming along in a couple of months, and I'll wish you well with the competition. If you prefer editing Wikipedia, this is the time to take something seriously and acknowledge what we're saying is serious and that the next humorous step is likely off the plank. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- Having the assumption of good faith stretched so much possibly does have the appearance of comedy. It should be a mirror, perhaps. I am (without comedy and without assuming good faith and without imparting any hidden messages or anything beyond what I am about to say) very sorry that it does seem that the way to avoid what has happened in the last 24 hours or so is to not cite references. I was enjoying things more when I was attempting to hack the image deletion approval bot and commenting to the author about my attempt. A good part of my problem right now (I admit that I have a problem) is that I am in a defensive stance that I do not actually believe that I am in. It doesn't make sense what I just said does it? I guess that I don't actually feel like the infringement of those rules are as infringing as they are being made to be. I am sorry about that feeling. I really really do think that the banana article is a strong issue in the prestige and professional face of wikipedia -- that splitting it into three articles (maybe only two -- it has been a while since I looked at it) is the kind of productive work that wikipedia is in more need of than the policing and protection from potential problems. My last edit to the administrative thingie is quite honest also, I have been plagiarized more than I have plagiarized and it has been without citation and it was a driving force in my citing faithfully all of my references. You can quote me on that, it is a fact. And nothing I wrote to you here was as sarcastic as asking the administration to check my math. The simple things are often the most difficult to figure out.
- Carol, the species and genus articles are separated from the fruit article. Hesperian 00:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
G'day
yup... another impertinent wiki editor inserting himself into l'affaire du Carol!
Don't want to further inflame anything, so I'll keep this one short.... I hope you're not too fired up, pissed off, or upset by today's posts... I have no idea yet of the merits of some of the points, and it could well be that you are a terrible scourge, but even so, I hope you don't burn out in a blaze of something, and you'll see that I've commented on the AN/I thread that I think we've sort of gotten a bit carried away over there (and above to a degree)... it'll all come out in the wash - and hey, it's nice to meet you by the way!
cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 04:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
- I really was extremely bored with the articles I was working on and the boring went away for a while :)
- Nice to 'meet' you as well; my '10 or 1000 ticklish little pricks' joke might not be the best way to go with this but it does reflect the actual mood here ;) -- carol (talk) 05:37, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
My apologies :-)
Heya Carol. I'm sorry I haven't been able to be more supportive during the past several days' melodramas. I run a farm and a garden/tree service, so as you can imagine I'm pretty much swamped this time of year. On the other hand, I think you've got a very good friend in Hesperian, and if you get frustrated again and need another, please feel welcome to call on me. I can't promise a lot of time "on the wiki", but I have been thinking of you the past couple days. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- You are sorry that you left me to be turmoiled by 10 to 1000 little pricks?
- There is something about history repeating itself which is barely implied in the cliche about remembering it. Some history is really nice to repeat and remembering it is good for that as well. It is one of the reasons I really am not interested in them changing it -- history that is. -- carol (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
BTW, you can find out who is an admin and who is not by checking Special:Listusers. If they are an edmin then they have "(Administrator)" after their name. Hesperian 05:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- So it is one user on a mission. I guess it means he is a little bigger of a prick than others, for whatever that is worth. That great editor left a link for me that started this day off very well for me.
- There was a promise at one of the image contests to nominate every single gilbert and sullivan image that was available. Those contests have been interesting to look at when I take a break, but so are the recent uploads when they are not super smutty.