User talk:Aholladay

Signing edit summaries
Just a note that you don't need to sign your edit summaries with ~ (and it doesn't produce your signature in edit summaries anyway). You only need to sign your comments on discussion pages (like this one). Thanks for editing! Hut 8.5 17:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Lightning and giraffes
Thank you for your last month's addition to the article on giraffes, explaining how they're more likely to be struck by lightning. As well, thank you for providing the exact source for where you got the information.

What you did wrong was that you copied the information practically verbatim from an external website; this is a copyright violation. I have rewritten that section (and deleted some superfluous information). Please don't copy word-for-word again. DS (talk) 15:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, it was from your own website? That's different, then. Here's the canned answer for how to deal with that:

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page. DS (talk) 01:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Modified releases
Unfortunately, your proposal that the release be Wikipedia-specific is... hm, what's a less harsh way of saying "unacceptable"?

The thing is, content on Wikipedia is specifically and explicitly allowed to be copied by other websites (as long as they specify its origin and mention that it's available to be copied for free by other websites as long as they specify its origin and etc). As such, limited licenses (how can we say that something is free for non-commercial use if it's an integral part of an article that can get copied onto a website that's ad-sponsored?) are incompatible with use on Wikipedia.

I'm really sorry. DS (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Lighting and giraffes
There are a number of reasons why I reverted your recent edit to the article Giraffe. First, it verged on original research. Secondly, I'm not sure your website qualifies as a reliable source under Wikipedia terms. Thirdly, the fact that you referenced your own website creates an obvious conflict of interest. And finally, I'm not sure the information is all that encyclopedic. If you wish to see the information included in the article, I would recommend raising it on the article's talk page, to see how others feel about this. A ecis Brievenbus 23:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Some of those criticisms are a little... iffy, I think. More to the point, however, I've already incorporated the key data into the article, worded differently. For instance, the fact that they are vulnerable to lightning has nothing to do with their evolution. DS (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye, it's been fun
Hi. Links to web sites are ordinarily not good references, and adding links to your .com site for information that is already well-referenced definitely constitutes spam. Because advertising the web site seems to be the only purpose for your account, I need to warn you that continuing to do this will rapidly result in your account being blocked. Looie496 (talk) 23:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I admire Wikipedia. It is one of the finest and most unusual things that has evolved on the Internet. To think that people from all over the world can contribute their knowledge and successfully build an encyclopedia -- is amazing. The encyclopedia is current, comprehensive and has the same accuracy rating as the Encyclopedia Britannica.

Since 2007, I have been writing bits and pieces for Wikipedia, based on a science Q&A column (WonderQuest) I wrote for USA Today and now write for Canada's most prestigious paper, the Globe and Mail. It's been fun.

Recently, I used Wikipedia as part of my research into a question I had received from a reader: why are cats' whiskers white. While answering the question, I consulted leading experts in the field (as I always do), and discovered that Wikipedia had an error in its article on cats and their whiskers. I corrected the error and referenced my column.

A while later, I checked the Wikipedia article and found that Wikipedia had kept my correction, but replaced my reference with a reference to a couple of journals. Of course, a journal's reference looks better than a website's, but this struck me as wrong. At least, they should have kept my reference, while adding the others.

Anyway, as a result of this and the frequent times where Wikipedia summarily removed my content, I have decided not to contribute more information. It's a waste of time, and not worth fighting over. I guess some people enjoy flame wars, but I don't.

Good luck, you folks. By and large, you're doing fine.