User talk:Jodon1971/Archive 3

Leonardo in Hungary
I removed the rest which was copy-pasted from a book. There is apparently a written account by Leonardo of a conversation with said leader. I don't have time to check it right now as it's the last day of my exhibition and I'll be busy dismantling until midnight, I suspect. Amandajm (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2013 (UTC)


 * answered last message on my page Amandajm (talk) 07:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry that I have not yet replied to your second query. I will try to do that tomorrow. In the meantime, read Tag bombing. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 21:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Advice
I'm afraid Wikipedia is less organised than you seem to think. There is no caste of "senior editors", some are more experienced than others, but that's all. Admins have extra tools, and responsibilities which have been well described as "janitorial" (so that the admins' emblem is a mop), but they have no special say in regard to content. Although many articles have experienced editors who "watch" them, this is a volunteer enterprise, nobody has to do anything, and people work on what interests them.

The way Wikipedia should operate is described in WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle - if you think a change would improve the encyclopedia, be BOLD and make it; but if it is then reverted, don't just make it again (which could lead to WP:Edit warring) but discuss it on the article talk page and try to reach a WP:Consensus with other editors. Failing consensus, there are WP:Dispute resolution processes.

Having said all that, with a big and well-developed article like this, it is probably prudent to propose changes on the talk page first. My suggestion would be, cut down the tags to the two or three most important, write a suggestion of the changes you think would improve the article, put that on the talk page and see what happens. You may have the problem that nobody responds. Suggestions for how to get people interested: look at the contribution history and see if any major contributors are still active. See whether there are any relevant WikiProjects. The talk page of this article lists WP:WikiProject Law and WP:WikiProject Ireland, and you could post on the talk pages of those WikiProjects. Finally, you can always put helpme on the article talk page.

Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Bankruptcy in the Republic of Ireland
Your tagging on Bankruptcy in the Republic of Ireland appears to me to be somewhat excessive.

Yes I am an Irish lawyer and wrote most of the article. That much is vislble on my talk page. I strove to make all of the material that I put on that page neutral and do not believe that there is any conflict of interest in my editing it.

WP:COI does suggest discussing issues with the author in question, but you appear to have simply tagged the page with any template you could find some basis to apply and walked away. You might let me know what COI issues you see in the article, other than the fact that I am a lawyer.

As regards third party sources, the article is, in my view, well referenced. It does have a significant number of references to relevant sections of the legislation, but there is little alternative if it is to direct the reader to the relevant material. Please bear in mind that Ireland may not provide as much legal aid as England and a significant number of people face bankruptcy as lay litigants.

As for lists vs prose, I personally find it difficult to see, where for instance legislation contains a list of seven or eight things that this can helpfully be reduced to a paragraph of prose.

Yes, the page could be improved, but I do not believe that the addition of the history of bankruptcy in Ireland in the 19th and early 20th centuary would do anything other than confuse readers.

While you challenge the page as being too technical, you suggest that the reasoning as to why show cause applications were not removed from the Irish law while they were removed from the English law should be added.

The page was never written as a sociology article. Accordingly, material relating to suicides among bankrupts does not appear to be appropriate. As an aside, I am not aware of any such suicides in reacent years. I am anecdotally aware of suicides among insolvent persons who have not been made bankrupt, but anecdote does not have a place on Wikipedia.

If you feel you can improve the article please do so. FrankFlanagan (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 21:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

 * Hi! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission.  I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Start Page
 * The Wikipedia Adventure Lounge
 * The Teahouse new editor help space
 * Wikipedia Help pages
 * -- 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Holy Crap. As if I wasn't already "excited" enough about WP...... -- Jodon  |  Talk  13:48, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Ha! Ha!
My dear old Dad had Tourette Syndrome. One always knew when he was coming home from the Pub because he would get dropped off at the gate, about 100 yards from the the house, and would lurch up the driveway, yelling: "Bang-a-Crash-a-Smash-a-Diddle-a-Pop-a-Whallop-a-Boom!" (or words to that effect). I don't know why his mother didn't by him a drum kit! She bought little Georgie a violin! Poor Willie only got a billiards table and a membership to the gym so he could learn to box! And cars.... very fast cars.... and oh, did he drive them fast! Amandajm (talk) 06:25, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Amandajm, I hope your dear old Dad didn't die in a car crash... -- Jodon  |  Talk  19:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it was the booze that got him.
 * After owning a Stuz Black Hawk and a Hispano Suiza, his mother died, and there was nothing left for poor Willie. His father-in-law purchased the Mulgoa General Store, and Bill did the deliveries. One day, roaring along the Silverdale Road with Jack Ashworth for company, the truck had a blowout, and knocked down five white roadside posts, bounced down the hill taking out eleven wattle trees and came to rest in a pleasant gully with a little creek and singing birds.  Jack Ashworth, who was a complacent character, had just put a cigarette in his mouth, and it was still there at the end of the ride. Dad had a nasty cut on the forehead where he hit the steering wheel. Jack handed him a handkerchief and said "Can you give us a light, Bill?"
 * The truck was winched up the hill using some great machine from Warragamba Dam construction site, and continued in use until the store was sold. Amandajm (talk) 00:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sounds like the makings of a good book or movie! -- Jodon  |  Talk  11:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Stats: Go to the history page of the article. Near the top there is a menu of stats including visitor figures, editors, page watchers etc etc. Amandajm (talk) 11:32, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Jodon  |  Talk  11:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

First to guess
Thanks Jimbo! -- Jodon  |  Talk  09:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Why I got the barnstar

Delamination
Hi Jodon! Looking at the way it is phrased ("It was also the first recorded instance of a stunt helicopter crashing as the result of delamination of a tail rotor") I am wondering if it was proven that delamination was the cause of the crash? I'm not absolutely disputing it, but looking at the sources, delamination as the cause of the crash was only claimed by the defense, claiming that it was "unforeseeable". However, the NTSB describe the probable cause as debris striking a blade causing sufficient imbalance to separate the gearbox and rotor assembly. They also concluded: "The Safety Board believes that the condition of the full tail rotor blade that remained attached to the rotor hub further illustrates the hazardous conditions to which the helicopter was exposed. The skin of part of this blade had separated from internal structures because the bonding had been exposed to high temperatures from the special effects explosions. However, the skin probably separated after the fracture of the other blade, and therefore, was not a significant factor in the loss of the tail rotor assembly." (my emphasis.) That the defendants were found not guilty didn't give proof to the defense's argument. Blackberry Sorbet  14:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Blackberry, Maybe this discussion should be on the article talk page? --  Jodon  |  Talk  14:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
 * NP. Blackberry  Sorbet  14:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
(copy/pasting request reply here)

Hello.

Can someone please explain the quickest and most painless way to get legitimate images uploaded into an article? I've seen perfectly good images being removed because they infringed some policy or other. What are the shortest steps involved in legitimizing and uploading images? Thanks.

This is my first time here, I'd also like to say that I wish I'd known about this place when I first joined Wikipedia. It probably would have saved me a lot of stress in dealing with abusive editors who were too impatient to explain things to a "junior" editor. I'm still of the opinion that some kind of mentoring process should exist by default, not by choice, when a new user joins, because a lack of familiarity with policy will inevitably create conflicts that waste needless time and energy and would otherwise not exist had there been a proper training period of adjustment to both anticipate and avoid such conflicts.

Regards,

Jodon |  Talk  17:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Jodon, the easiest way is to make sure the image is either in the public domain or that it is expressly released by the copyright holder. What makes it more complicated is that images need to be in the public domain in the US regardless of the country of origin, and copyright laws are myriad and confusing. Examples are that in the UK Canada copyright lasts for 50 years after the authors death whereas it's 70 years in the US, so an image can be in the public domain (PD) in the UK Canada 20 years before it becomes PD in the US. Another is Freedom of panorama where in the UK, images of 3D works like statues in public places are PD but the same is not true in the US. the there is the question of first publication, as a lot of the US copyright laws depend on when the image was published, not when it was created.


 * If you have an image you want to upload and are unsure of what it's status is the best place to ask is at Media copyright questions and give as much detail as you have - the author (if known), where you found the image, when was it published (if ever), when was it created etc. Editors who watch that page will help you out in establishing if it's a photo that can be used. NtheP (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Correction of detail: it's 70 years after the author's death in the UK as well. List of countries' copyright length. --ColinFine (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Colin, thanks - I spent a lot of time yesterday dealing with a Canadian copyright and didn't switch back to UK thinking properly. NtheP (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays
Hello Jodon I'd like to wish you Happy Hanukkah since the holy festival begins today and also I'd like to wish you happy holidays. Also Merry Xmas. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * In addition sorry for earlier calling you m.o.p. It was a simple mistake. I had copied and pasted the comment from the talk page of another user but I didn't properly edit it after pasting at your talk page. Sorry for that and hope you didn't mind. KahnJohn27 (talk) 18:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, KahnJohn. Sorry for the long delay in responding, I was taking an extended wikibreak. Happy belated holidays, hope you had a good one. Jodon  |  Talk  18:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

science fiction category and subgenre confusion
Your recent edit conflict is from the misconception that soft and hard science fiction are subgenres of science fiction in the same way space opera, space western, Dystopia etc. are.

That is incorrect. The theme of one sci-fi story may fit into a subgenre of sci-fi, wheras it's scientific accuracy may determine it to be categorically hard sci-fi or soft sci-fi.

So let's as an example pick 2 sci-fi stories that belong to the same subgenre. Say Terminator and Blade Runner belong to the Dystopia subgenre of science fiction because their themes are fixed in that subgenre. But let's suppose Terminator is not scientifically as accurate or plausible as Blade Runner. In fact let's suppose it's way off scientific reality.

Blade Runner on the other hand we'll pretend is more hard sci-fi in other words more scientifically accurate and even possible in the future.

Terminator is way off in scientific accuracy that it fits the definition of soft sci-fi. But wait, these 2 are still Dystopia, because their themes are set in a Dystopian environment.

So you see they both belong to the same subgenre, but not the same category of science fiction. Now I'm not saying that's actually the case, just making an example for discussion sake.

Now staying by the example let's pretend of another sci-fi story also belonging to the Dystopia subgenre. Let's just call it "Story X" again for discussion sake.

Story X also belongs to the Dystopia subgenre of sci-fi but has elements of extremely plausible and realistic science, but it the same time has elements non-realitic, less chance of possibility.

It is still Dystopia, but with with both elements of realistic and non-realistic sci-fi, so in essence it's both soft and hard sci-fi. Does it make sense to you now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.165.246.181 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2014 (UTC)