User talk:Paul A/2004-2

Thanks for the edit!
That was fast! New Lawrence Miles entry only just posted and you've proof-read and corrected it for me already. Thanks Paul. Guybrush 02:15, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I can't make any real claim to fastness, though: it's just coincidence that I happened to discover the existence of the article at the time I did. --Paul A 02:30, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Edit attribution
Hi Paul. Edits from your IPs have now been reattributed to your username. Regards  &mdash; Kate Turner | Talk 11:52, 2004 Sep 4 (UTC)

The yahoos
On the yahoo page you added a rather unique paragraph about the search engines name in relation to the species. I've removed this, since I and another person thought it was strange. If you can back it up (I honestly think that it is much more likely the the name comes from the exclamation rather than the species) it could go in the Yahoo! article instead, though the part about the top searches is NPOV. --Dyss 00:03, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Replied at Talk:Yahoo. --Paul A 01:37, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Likewise :-) --Dyss 10:46, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Star Control images
Hmmm, I checked up on this, and you appear to be right. One of the developers of UQM informed me that the goal is to have them released under a Creative Commons license, but it hasn't quite happened yet. So I suppose I should go through and switch them all to, thanks for pointing this out. Andre ( talk )A| 17:13, Oct 20, 2004 (UTC)

Question
On the Watchmen page, you changed a link from November 2004 to November As of 2004, but the latter is just a redirect to 2004. Is there some un-obvious reason for the change that I'm not picking up on? Just curious. -- &#2325;&#2369;&#2325;&#2381;&#2325;&#2369;&#2352;&#2379;&#2357;&#2366;&#2330;|Talk&#8253; 20:40, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There's an explanation at As of, and at least some of the evolution of the current system can be seen at Wikipedia talk:As of. --Paul A 01:56, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sister Fidelma
[see Talk:Sister Fidelma for original message]

Thx, you're right; perhaps i should change it to 'literary tradition'.

It may be that the problem lies in my humble english skills

Lectonar 08:41, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[see Talk:Sister Fidelma for response]

Thanks
Thanks for helping on The Secret Garden Article. I've been working on that too.

Again, Thanks Lee S. Svoboda

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to... using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.
 * 1) ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
 * 2) ...all articles...

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the   template (or    for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:


 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace   with   . If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 20:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Question re: image sizes
I've only just started adding images to some of the articles I've been working on, and I noted that you changed the size of the image in Modesty Blaise from 300 to 215. Is there a rule regarding the size of images? I've been going with 300 as a rule because I felt the larger images looked better on the page. But if there is a bandwidth issue, etc. I'll make note to make the images smaller in future. Thanks! (My talk page) 23skidoo 22:49, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The Wikipedia Image use policy on Displayed image size suggests a range of 200-250; it's generally felt that 300 is a bit too large. (If you're interested, I picked 215 because it divides evenly into the original size of the image; I don't know that it makes a real difference, but it feels like it ought to, and it's as good a way of picking a size as any I can think of.)
 * Incidentally, I was amused by the cover text proclaiming Modesty to be "England's answer to James Bond", as if James Bond wasn't an Englishman himself. (I blame Hollywood, of course.)
 * --Paul A 02:55, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoa! That was quick! I'd heard of the speed of Wikipedia editing, but not believed it. Somewhat disheartened by the close-to disappearance of 15 mins work on Azrael, I'll take it as a lesson in what to expect. You saved me a job by giving him his own page though. :o)User:Rednaxela err not quite sure how to sign off, sorry!- I'm kinda new here.

Photos
It must have been a slow day if you had nothing else to do but shift the photo of Judi Dench in Mrs. Brown from one side of the entry to the other! There's no figuring out the "standards" here - half the pictures that I placed on the right because they were facing "in" were moved to the left by people claiming all photos must be on the left. So I put a photo on the left and you move it to the right! Everbody wants to be "Mr. Fixit" - am I the only one who actually WRITES for Wikipedia??? The FinalWord 05:04, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, I've never heard anybody claim that all photos must be on the left; I myself go by the Wikipedia Manual of Style, which says that "Articles with a single picture are encouraged to have that picture at the top of the article, right-aligned" and that portraits should be aligned with faces looking into the article.
 * I shall overlook your slights on the seriousness of my Wiki-contributions; I don't care what you say about me, so long as it isn't true. --Paul A 06:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Tolkien stub(s) categories
Why did you create Category:Tolkien stubs just to contain Category:Tolkien stub and Template:Tolkienstub? Anárion 14:13, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I didn't and it doesn't. All the articles containing Template:Tolkienstub are now in Category:Tolkien stubs, and will tell you so if you visit any one of them. The catch is that the Category lists are updated only when the article itself is edited, so to finish the job somebody (probably me) is going to have to nip through and make trivial edits to every article containing the template. I had planned to; I just hadn't got around to it yet. --Paul A 01:32, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Anárion 07:24, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, and I know this is a tiny point, it's usual to have stub notes come before categories, the theory being that stub notes are "in" text, while categories (and interwikis) are "outside" it. If you want to make a more productive dummy edit, add a brief html comment saying what you think should be added to make it not a stub (if you can't think of anything, maybe it's short but complete). Stan 13:38, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I'll bear that in mind. My process to date (not so obvious on most of the Tolkien stubs, I admit, because they don't have enough categories) has been to put the stub note wherever it needs to be so that the categories, including the stub category, are listed in alphabetical order. --Paul A 13:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't know if anybody else is doing that - I tend to order the most-relevant to least-relevant myself. Stan 00:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cinderella
Paul, The Foot binding link on the cinderella page was not intended as a stealth link. I am not even sure what a stealth link is. Since that was one of the prime motivators for the original story, I thought there should be some connection between the pages. I am open to suggestions as to how you think it would be more appropiate. Michael L. Kaufman 04:48, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I am sorry that I removed the link like that; I should have discussed my objection with you first. I apologise.
 * Come to think of it, I'm not sure what I meant by a stealth link, either. I think what I was objecting to was the fact that you linked to a potentially-controversial topic without explaining what the relevance was; it wasn't clear from the article as it stood that Cinderella had anything to do with foot-binding (despite the continued significance of Cinderella's shoe size, the reason is somewhat opaque in the familiar Western versions, and I have to admit that I'd never made the connection myself). Your latest additions make it a lot clearer; thank you. --Paul A 05:06, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * The other thing is that I didn't like the idea of it being brought up in the plot summary. I feel there ought to be a separation between the description and the discussion of the story, if you see what I mean. --Paul A 05:10, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kolchak:The Night Stalker
Hello Paul, Just wanted to say the work you've done on Kolchak: The Night Stalker is a huge improvement. It flows a lot better now, and the way you structured it is a lot more logical than the way I'd set it out. Thanks! Rossrs 12:15, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I'm glad you approve. --Paul A 12:49, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)