User talk:Peter the Great

le rayon électrique vous indique: «touché».

Religion
Where did you explain your edit on the talk page of Religion? I can't find it anywhere? Your edit summary said see talk. Please help. Thanks.PelleSmith 22:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK I found the message about the entry being likened to smelly human waste. Cheers.PelleSmith 23:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles can either be great or crap. It's our choice. The test is whether, using the article, the term conveys at least some bit of definite information. --Peter the Great 14:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The manner in which you are trying to define the object of belief is against consensus--and it is directly related to a rather long discussion we have been having since you posted your initial comment. See the talk page.  All efforts at precision and concision are more than commended I think by any editor, but just because you take a definitive stance doesn't mean it is always good one or at least the best one.  In this case I think my talk page comments speak for themselves as to what I think about that particular issue.  Cheers.PelleSmith 16:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * You must be talking about super-majority, because consensus would include me, and I don't consent to the definition. If fact, before I changed it, it had my vote for worst article on Wikipedia: a perfect example of groupthink. --Peter the Great 16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very well aware of your opinion. I don't think its a very good entry either, but then again "religion" may be the most slippery term in academia.  Have a look the amounts of scholarship produced about religion and about defining the term.  A good read in this regards is Benson Saler's Conceptualizing Religion.  Saler opts for an approach that in my unfair short version basically says:  1) Religion is something that may include any of the following aspects 2)list "the following" 3)if it includes enough of the factors on the list we can call it religion.  This very approach is indicative to the history of the concept in the West.  It tries to productively get around the reality that if we gather up all that we have labeled "religion", there is no one universal feature which can be found cross-culturally and historically in all of these phenomena.  I'm not sure I agree completely with Saler, but the point is that its not just because of some culture of Wikipedia that this is a hard task.  Do a preliminary survey of the academic literature and you will see what a black hole this issue is.PelleSmith 19:26, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that why they say it's holy? ;P --Peter the Great 20:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your question? And just for the record I would like to affirm the fact that I agree whole heartedly with you statement above: "The test is whether, using the article, the term conveys at least some big of definite information".  I just find it curious that you don't seem to want to make attempts to engage the particular issues I bring up with "religion" but simply repeat your formula over and over again.  Religion really is a rather peculiar pickle.  But what did you mean by that question?PelleSmith 02:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a joke. You said that the issue of religion is a black hole, so I asked if that's why they call it holy. Get it? --Peter the Great 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * My bad. I usually love puns too (no joke).  I must be losing it.PelleSmith 02:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Christian X of Denmark
I'm reverting your edit to the article on Christian X of Denmark. The book mentioned only contains a black-and-white version and we need a source for the coloured version. I've seen this version before ages ago, but it is not very common and I can't remember the exact book. The image looks very much like a contemporary colourization. Unless we have the name of the person who made the coloured version, we can't tell for sure if this person still has any rights to it, but such works normally have a copyright term of author's life + 70 years. Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 15:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I was the person who colorized the image. I released it to the public domain as per the license tag. I can prove that I colorized it by emailing you a larger version, if you would like, as well as the CorelDraw files that contain the color layers on top of the original black and white. All I ask in return is that, next time, you assume good faith when you have no reason to doubt. --Peter the Great 15:54, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your post. I can see that you've updated the image description, and as long as it is clearly stated that this particular version does not appear in the 1945 book, I won't have any problem with it. However, you should be aware that others also colourized this image 50 years ago, so if I jumped to conclusions, I apologize, but you should be aware that others will very likely also identify this image with another version. I personally prefer black-and-white images since I consider them more original. The old version also had the advantage of size. Any particular reason why the coloured version is so small? Valentinian T / C 19:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * One of the best methods of getting rid of the grainy effect of the original includes resampling the picture smaller. Resampling, by itself, isn't as effective, so uploading the grainy picture and letting Wikipedia resample it wouldn't have produced as striking as an image. Regarding black and whites, I agree that the original is preferable when clear, but in this case adding color brought out the flag and the King better. --Peter the Great 20:39, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I had a feeling it was something along those lines. Unfortunately, the image in the book is just as grainy as the scan, so a higher-res scan won't solve this issue. Happy editing. Valentinian T / C 20:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Block
Peter, I've blocked this account as one suspected of being operated by a banned user. If you feel this is a mistake, please e-mail me at slimvirgin at gmail dot com to discuss it. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 01:26, 22 February 2007 (UTC)