User talk:Solipsist/archive1

Welcome
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia.

You might find these links helpful in creating new pages or helping with the above tasks: How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Naming conventions, Manual of Style. You should read our policies at some point too.

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!


 * If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.


 * You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: . If you use four, you can add a datestamp too.


 * If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.


 * Before saving a page, it's a good idea to use the Show Preview button to review your edits.

Again, welcome! - UtherSRG 16:45, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Henry Moore
The trouble with your image placement edit on Henry Moore is that it now looks terrible on a large monitor - say 1600.1200. The second image is inset from the first. The purpose of the DIV arrangement you removed was to ensure the two images are always right justified and one above another. Do you fancy reconsidering your edit? --Tagishsimon


 * You are right, sorry about that: hopefully fixed again now &mdash; Actually I fancy rewriting and expanding the article, which would give more space to allow the images to float. And ideally add and image or (replace the Westminster image) to show a pierced reclining figure. -- Solipsist 13:52, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Agreed, all we need is for someone with Henry Moore knowledge to come along and provide some more text. And if you're that person, go for it. BTW, I see you are adding Category:Sculptors ... could I suggest you think about the format which has the effect of ordering the links in the categry list in familyname order rather than firstname order. (Or not - your choice, except for Enzo, who is already in that format.) --Tagishsimon


 * No problem. could I suggest you think about the format  - Indeed, unfortunately I only found out about that trick around about the G's, and I'm also now placing the category tags at the bottom of the page. With luck I will go back and fix the earlier tags, but I am out of time today. By the way, theEnzo page is suffering from a bug in the category system which puts white space at the end of the first line. When a picture is right aligned against the first para everything gets rather squished. The work around is to move the picture down to the second para (not good in this case), or put two   at the top of the page (also not brilliant). -- Solipsist 14:10, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

image names
better to not include pixel info in image names, this data is easily obtainable with any image library even webbrowsers...and it makes it more annoying when people will change your image. also, learn about the image syntax, eg thumb|200px

by the way
did you know you can get the names in order in a category by putting tags like this: which specify how they'll be alphabetized? -- Nunh-huh 11:51, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * No I didn't - that's useful -- Solipsist 12:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

categories
Its a new one on me. It seems we're going to need technical ways to have synonymous categories (Poet and Poets, for example). I can try to delete the page with the superfluous category (I'm not sure if it's possible, but I'll try) and then you can creat a page without a capitalization problem...you'll still have to change it in each individual article till a technical soluntion is forthcoming. - Nunh-huh 11:26, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * well, that seems to have gone ok....let me know if I'm wrong! -- Nunh-huh 11:30, 31 May 2004 (UTC)


 * That seems to have done the trick - Thanks. Fortunately I haven't created any tagged articles with the capitalisation. There is a second minor capitalisation issue in that doesn't get automatically promoted to  with the first letter capitalised -- Solipsist 12:02, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * I really think we should dispense with case sensitivity for these categories, but that will probably be a refinement at some later time. Meanwhile I'd try to use lowercase except where Uppercase is for some reason essential (Proper Name), etc. -- Nunh-huh 12:05, 31 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Actually I think I was wrong. Capitalisation promotion could be working normally, so it was probably a cache issue that got me before -- Solipsist 12:59, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

Artesian
I regret to inform you that I have listed artesian as a possible copyright infringement. (I know you didn't post the text, of course.) Your diagram is very good, so I thought it would be courteous to let you know of its companion article's demise. It's a shame; but a new, clean version can be posted in a /Temp subpage as per the instructions (and I may do this myself if nobody else gets around to it). In any event, your diagram will not be deleted. Cheers, -- Hadal 09:52, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd noticed. My drawing was just a reworking of a diagram I saw elsewhere. I thought you had done rather well to spot the text was a copyvio. Rewriting a stub is one solution, but now I look into it more, I have mild doubts as to whether the article should be under the title Artesian in the first place &mdash; as your first link makes clear, in a more general sense it should really means 'from Artois'.
 * One solution is to amalgamate the article (and diagram) into Well which is what the 1911 EB does. I could then update the diagram to include a water table well. Trouble is there are also Artesian springs to explain. So alternatively we could move Artesian to Artesian well, explain Artesian springs under the same article and include redirects for Artesian spring and a (one line?) disambig for Artesian.
 * Another interesting wrinkle that your second link implies is that the water table is not a perpendicular surface (as my diagram naively implies), but is probably a sloping or curved potentiometric surface. -- Solipsist 19:23, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hello
I chuckled when I saw your name -- hadn't noticed you around before. I decided (I have a notably absurd and whimsical sense of humor) to drop by and ask if I was a figment of your imagination, or if you were a figment of mine. ;-) Either way, I think the response will be worth reading.  Happy editing, Jwrosenzweig 23:50, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to have brightened your day. Smile and the whole world smiles with you - which of course doesn't surprise the solipsist. As to your question, logically I can only give one answer, but I refuse to do so on the grounds that I might incriminate myself :-) -- Solipsist 14:29, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
 * Delightful. I hope to see you around more often (or perhaps I will merely will it). :-) Jwrosenzweig 15:52, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the flowers
Thanks for the compliments on the Bobby Sands rebalancing. I've just did a brief-ish page on the 1981_Irish_Hunger_Strike, which seemed to me to be sorely missing, and had to edit the links in the Bobby Sands entry afterwards anyway. Thanks for the point on minor editing vs. major editing. I'm new to this so all tips appreciated. Gerry Lynch 23:16, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

from carptrash
Hello Solipsist:

I have been including some sources, but most of it is coming from research that I have done over the past 25 years. Much of what I'm posting was done building by building, sculpture by sculpture. Hence the freqent reference to Unpublished Manuscripts  The books that I use are all ones that i have in my own library, seeing as I sort of in an out of the way spot in New Mexico [USA].

But thanks for the feed back. I, sort of like the DJs that you sometimes hear at 3 AM who muse, "I wonder if there is anyone out there hearing this?'" find myself wondering the same. Not that it matters too much. At some point someone will want to know about Charles Keck, and here it will be.

PS
Your line, "Thanks for your stirling work in bolstering the information on American sculptors" has given me my next sculptor, A Stirling Calder ! thanks Carptrash 20:05, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

carptrash - again
okay, I did the math [a weak area] and it has only been 22 years. great i just got 3 years younger.

But, seriously, Solipsist, I need your help. i did an entry for Alexander Stirling Calder [and one for his dad, Alexander Milne Clader too] but I spelled Stirling as "StErling" and now i can't chane it.

By the by, I saw you in the history section of Alexander Calder, so you doing sculpture, or was that an accident? Carptrash 03:49, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * No problem, I've moved the page to Alexander Stirling Calder and updated the two links that point there. 'Alexander Sterling Calder' is still kept as a redirect. Actually it looks like an easy mistake, I found quite a few web sites who use the 'E' spelling, but 500:35 use the 'I'. I've also put some links to the dynasty in the Alexander Calder page. Mind you with three generations of Alexander Calders, they were just asking for trouble.
 * Since you are adding quite a few sculptors, you might be interested in Manual of Style (biographies) which contains various tips for biographical articles. But it is more useful to get the original information in, there are plenty of other people who will come along and fix the Wikilinks later.
 * And yes I've been active in contributing to various sculptor related articles including Alexander Calder (it would be nice to find a Public Domain image of one of his mobiles though).
 * You can find out a little about a person's interests by visiting their user page and following the 'User contributions' link on the left hand panel. -- Solipsist 07:24, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

and again
thanks for repairing my stirling error and for saving grandpa from that merger attempt. i am about to try doing some photo stuff when I get my scanner up and running - it arrived by UPS today, but my computer can't find it - and so will probably need close watching. I am printing off ALL the photo tips and suggestions pages, so i really will try.

Carptrash 03:14, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC).

Very Rich Hours
I would go with either Très Riches Heures du duc de Berry or Très Riches Heures, but probally the former, as there may be other manuscripts known as the Très Riches Heures. I would argue that NO medievalist would ever call it "The Very Rich Hours", and so translating the title would be wrong. Thanks for creating the article, by the way, the Très Riches Heures is on of the two most important illuminated manuscripts and we sorely needed an article on it. (The other is the Book of Kells ) Dsmdgold 16:08, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * OK, I've moved the article and updated most of the links. I'm sure there is a lot more could be said about the book, but the stub is a start. As it happens I was in Dublin a couple of weeks ago and almost saw the Book of Kells, but the queues were rather long and I ran out of time (and at &#8364;12 for entry, seeing the Lindisfarne Gospels for free at the British Library looks like better value ;-) -- Solipsist 17:04, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

art & stuff
Yes, I can easily be convinced - but right now my wife is jingling the car keys at me - we are off to a Fire Ceremony -a hot night to be sure. Later. . . . Einar

DNA repair
Thanks for the clarification. I am all for criticism which is why I wanted to draw attention to the article. The feedback I received from one objector however bordered on insult.

Cheers prometheus1 08:42, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, User:Shibboleth's initial comments were maybe too harsh, but he has appologised several times (often quite diplomatically). I'm sure his comments were well intentioned, and as I've mentioned on your talk pages the FAC objection on writing style is very common, and quite probably correct with respect to the specific requirements of featured article status. -- Solipsist 09:13, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the mediation, Solipsist. Yes, I approve of clearing up the debate on WP:FAC.  Actually you can delete my objections too, or alternatively reduce the first to just "Dislike writing style.", since if they have validity others should make the same points.  I will be more careful with my objections in the future. --Shibboleth 18:38, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I would be delighted to have some genuine constructive criticism in the spirit of making the article more accessible to a wider audience providing that the integrity of the informational content is retained and that it is acknowledge that a certain prerequisite knowledge of biology and genetics is required to make full use of it. prometheus1 04:29, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

yes
Thanks - you are doing Audrey proud. And the Wikiholic thing is way toooooo deep for me right now. i need/want to get a couple more pictures out elsewhere yet this morning. then worry about my addictions