Suspected pseudonym: user:Joe Canuck
More discussion related to DW (as Angelique): /Quebec issue
Most wanted:
DW, it is Wikipedia convention to include a complete sentence i nthe first line of every article. Please don't go around changing that. -- Zoe
Look at all of the articles written by anybody else. Do you see them doing it the way you're doing? I will continue to change them if you put them back the way they were. -- Zoe
DW -- I showed you mine -- Now why don't you show us yours? JHK
I don't see very well what makes you think I have any knowledge in politics. But I'll see what I can do user:Anthere
Hey, DW, I've been following the List of Famous Canadians "debate" and I just wanted to put my two cents in.
First of all, if you are truly trying to change the tenor of the "discussion" by signing in under a different username and pretending to be someone else, then that alone is, in my mind, enough to warrant a temporary ban as it shows a basic disregard for the principles of cooperation and scholarship. It is deceptive and lowers the threshold of morality for the entire Wikipedia.
Secondly, I have taught five-year-old children who have responded to arguments more intelligently and with greater maturity than you have shown. I don't know how old you are, but if you are, in fact, older than twelve, I suggest you think long and hard about your response to disagreements.
Thirdly, you seem to be placing an awful lot of importance on an article that, in my eyes, is not too important at all. I can not think of any reason why I might ever want to look at a list of famous Canadians and I believe all such lists are useless, but I do not interfere and attempt to delete them. Your repeated vandalism of the page, and I don't see how it could be characterized as anything else since it violates the obviously agreed upon community standard, is shameful no matter how many other wonderfully written and edited articles you have written.
Fourthly, your ad hominem attacks are irrelevant and silly. Even assuming Jeronimo espoused actual racist beliefs towards Americans, this should not be barring him from writing an article on Canadians (which are not the same thing as Americans, as I'm sure you know if you are, in fact, Canadian). Similarly, your statements that no Dutch person would name himself Jeronimo may or may not have any basis in fact whatsoever. I have had no luck in deciphering exactly what the problem with the name is, however it is most certainly not evidence of any quality that he is not Dutch. My understanding is that the Netherlands is a diverse land with many different positions and viewpoints, and I certainly hope there is enough cultural acceptance there to allow any citizen to go by any name. And for the record, I do know two born-and-bred patriotic Americans named Benedict, and one named Arnold.
In light of all these things (and the comments on your user page and talk page), I must conclude that if I had the power to, I would have banned you (and all your aliases) several days ago. I hope you never get involved with any of the articles I am working on, and I would not be sorry in the slightest to see you leave Wikipedia permanently. I don't believe the Wikipedia Community needs or wants contributors like you.
Tokerboy 18:03 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)
I didn't mean to suggest that Jimbo or anyone else will ban him because he's on the wrong side in an edit war, but because of his immaturity and unwillingness to compromise. I simply stated that I would, if I could, ban him, or at least seek a community acceptance of banning him. I have no problems with anyone discussing the meaning of the word "famous," I simply believe that DW has shown that he is unwilling to discuss anything and would prefer to use deception and pigheaded stubbornness to convince everyone to give up and leave him alone to do as he pleases. Any attempts at discussing this with him, Ed, is welcome and well-meaning but will probably be useless. Tokerboy 18:35 Oct 14, 2002 (UTC)
I posted some questions at Talk: Politics of Canada--a few sentences are very confusing right now, and some important details are lacking. You seem to know a lot about the Quebec independence thing, so maybe you can help? Tokerboy 21:39 Oct 20, 2002 (UTC)
I thought the accepted disambiguation format for movies was to use the title then (movie), or the title then (year movie) if there are more than one? --KQ
Do we have permission to use the image at Juliette Binoche? --KQ 02:14 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)
Of course! ...DW
DW:
Magnus Manske 20:49 Jan 1, 2003 (UTC)
DW, you are correct in one point: it is 250, not 350 pixel (Wikipedia:Image use policy). And, with my mentioning of being here a long time I was merely trying to point out your attitude, which is a little absolutistic ("...images are too large...","...you were told..."). Well, maybe the NPOV is finally getting to me ;-)
You still haven't told me what you mean with "2.5 inches", though... --Magnus Manske 22:21 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)
DW I wonder if the images you've uploaded are really free of right ? Ericd
Hi DW,
Could you put some information about the source and copyright status of the Golda Meir image on its description page please? Thanks. Mswake 12:16 Jan 17, 2003 (UTC)
DW Your answer in Talk:Front de Libération du Québec was your first answer on a talk page. I think it's a good thing. Can you also give some answers to questions about source and copyright status of the images you've uploaded.
Thanks.
DW,
You have produced a lot of good work in the Wikipedia, and I'd hate to see us develop hard feelings. If you really feel that the Wikipedia consensus is wrong, please discuss it either on the mailing list or at the Wikipedia:Village pump page. It's not my standards that I'm adhering to, it's what the Wikipedia community in general have decided. -- Zoe
DW, I just discovered that you actually *replace* my images, instead of uploading your smalled version to a different name (e.g., "xx_small.jpg"). An example of that is media:Peter Paul Rubens.jpg. Please link to that larger version from the image desctiption via the media namespace, as I did above.
Also, do that for all the images you already have "overwritten".
Thanks, Magnus Manske 21:16 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
Re my talk page:
By shrinking my images, information is lost. While that might be not a real problem on the screen, it starts getting ugly when someone tries to print such an image. So, usual practice (you can find many examples of this in the image list, just search it for "small") for shrinking an image "xx.jpg" is to
In any case, on the image description page of the small image should be a media: link to the large one.
Yes, I know the large image is still in the "history" list, but it is unlikely to be found there. --Magnus Manske 22:23 Jan 24, 2003 (UTC)
I wish you would quit abusing other contributors; I'm embarassed for you to see the things you say. We're all here because we believe in what wikipedia stands for, other people just as much as you, and friendliness would go a long way towards making everyone's time here pleasant.
DW, what image are you talking about? It would be nice to know exactly which sin you're accusing me of, I lose track ;-)
While I'm at it, you are (still) in error about image sizes in pixels and inches. Let me phrase it in bold text: There is no relation between the size of an image in inches and pixels. Find an image, look at it on your screen when set to 1024x768, take a ruler and measure the width. Now do the same again, but at 640x480. Then do both of that on a screen with a different physical size. Then save that image, open it in Paintshop (or whatever). Set it to 75 dpi and print it. Then set it to 600 dpi and print again. Notice a pattern there? All of them are different sizes in inch, but the same size in pixels.
Got it? --Magnus Manske
DW's latest threats have been placed on the Wiki list and sent around, as requested by some other members.
DW, sorry to do this but at Jimbo's request I have blocked your ability to contribute to this website as a "signed-in user". --Ed Poor
Others have weighed in on your userpage, and I must agree that I find it offensive and silly. Assuming you are really DW's widow, I should certainly hope that you realize that no one on Wikipedia murdered him, and I resent the accusation otherwise; of course, if you have serious reasons for believing that Mav or Zoe or someone else actually murdered him in any relevant meaning of the word, then this doesn't apply. Otherwise, I request that you change your user page as it is unnecessarily inflammatory and misleading.
With regards to your late husbands comments re: my comments in the edit window of Brion Vibber's talk page (I did an illegal search query -- cuz I am a bad ass) and another user, the specific complaint of which I am currently unable to find, I note that your late husband has left the following comments in the edit comments box:
While I can understand DW's apprehension about his daughter being exposed to my and someone else's comments in the freely accessible Recent Changes page, I should certainly hope that he (and you) can/could/will differentiate and explain the differences between something that uses foul language but is obviously meant to be a joke (such as my note to Brion) and your late husband's hate-filled attacks on other contributors. If his (and, presumably, your) daughter grows up not understanding the difference between these two ideas, then I hope she leaves home as soon as possible to learn the difference between off-color humor and speech expressing vicious hatred towards another person. This, of course, includes comparing, without any noticeable proof, an individual to Osama Bin Laden -- as far as hate speech goes, this about as hateful as possible and I, for one, find it imeasurably hateful as it trivializes bin Laden's evil by equating with what is, at most, a disagreement over what qualifies as a famous Canadian. I certainly hope, for your daughter's sake, that you understand the difference between a statement of hatred and the humorous use of a word commonly perceived as impolite.
Tell DW I said wuzzup Tuf-Kat
Text from user page moved here
This space here at the top is where users normally put in some information about themselves, eg. qualifications, experience, or just plain personal data. It would be nice to know more about you, DW. I'd hate to think that there is nothing to know. Best regards, Deb 10:06 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC) P.S. Woof!
Welcome, DW! May I recommend the Welcome, newcomers article to your attention? As well as outlining Wikipedia standards on the neutral point of view, it should point you to the standards and instructions for adding images to articles. Hope you enjoy contributing! -- April 08:40 Aug 9, 2002 (PDT)
Yes, welcome. Do you have a better picture of the Arrow? We don't use BMP here since that's a Microsoft-only format, and anyway it was really badly dithered. Do you know where the original came from? I'm sure we can produce a better picture from the original. --LDC
Actually it's not a Microsoft-only format (GIMP handles it well), but it's not well compressed, nor is it widely supported in web browsers. -phma
Yes, I used GIMP to convert it, but the format itself ws designed by Microsoft for Microsoft Windows, and is particularly suited to the Win32 API. Sure, a few folks have nonetheless figured it out and can use them on real computers :-), but it's still primarily a Windows thing, and I don't want to have to repeat that whole last paragraph every time I tell someone not to use it. --LDC
Welcome, DW. Might I suggest that you also check out the Naming conventions article? And, if you like, tell us a bit about yourself! Enjoy! JHK
DW -- Regarding linking the Carolingian Dynasty article forward -- it will not be done until there is proper material added to the list for non-French Carolingians and an explanation that they aren't exclusively a part of French History. At present, I believe there is a link in History of France to Carolingians which is much more comprehensive and explains more than a bunch of names. If you are concerned about this, or would like more of an explanation, I suggest you read my extensive comments at Talk:Carolingian Dynasty. Thanks JHK
DW -- please not the format we use for alternate language names, perhaps by looking at an article on a Holy Roman Emperor or Polish City. You will note that we place the alternate, usually non-English, names in parentheses after the name of the language in italics). Just because you want everybody to use the French names doesn't mean you should go through and write them all in French, except for the article title. If you are truly attempting o expand knowledge, then you should write as if your audience knows very little -- you might think it a natural conclusion for people to see Henri throughout an article on Henry I of France asd figure it out that Henri is Franch for Henry, but it isn't really that way. Many people will just be confused. JHK
DW -- generally, we respond to people's comments -- is there a problem with the way we've been doing articles? If so, you should perhaps offer alternative ways of doing things. You're putting huge amounts of interesting info in, but it's looking very cribbed from other sources (are they PD) and there is perhaps more genealogical info than is necessary in historical biography. I say this because people often see a list of names and decide they should link to their own articles, which is not always a good idea. We often know so little about younger daughters, etc., that there's no point in an encyclopedia, althought there would be in a dictionary of biography -- but wikipedia is not a dictionary. JHK
DW, I'm rather confused at what you are attempting to accomplish here at Wikipedia. The project succeeds only because people are willing to work with each other and establish common conventions. Those conventions are certainly open to change, but coming in as a new contributor and unilaterally changing them is not the way to go about it. Why not work with the other contributors here, instead of chnaging things as you alone see fit? If you want to work on Wikipedia, you should take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Naming conventions for a start. --Stephen Gilbert
Yo, DW. I like a lot of your ideas, and so do others. But please try not to be so antagonistic.
You wrote, to Magnus, "Instead of trying to be a hero and getting people like Zoe to stroke your ego, slow down and do things properly. Looking at a page with your kind of minimal input and poor quality, overwhelming photos, is what turns people away from Wikipedia."
You also wrote, to Zoe, some interesting, if rude, words about marketing expertise.
It occurs to me, and I hope you'll reflect on this and take it to heart, that you might apply some marketing expertise to your presentation of your self. Regard the rest of us as potential customers for your ideas -- and sell those ideas to us in an appealing package, rather than yelling at us.
Hey DW!
Thanks so much for being here. You seem so knowledgeable about so many things (so few of us are!). I wish you liked us one-tenth as much as we like you.
Arthur 01:42 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)
DW, It is imperative that you stop being mean to people. Your work is generally good, why are you doing this? Please email me: [email protected], and let's chat about it. I hate to ban good people, but if you continue to insult people, I'll have no choice. --user:Jimbo Wales
DW, I thought you made a good point about putting a country of origin next to a person's details. Sometimes it makes sense and sometimes it doesn't. For example, nation-states were born with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648). Prior to that, the concept of countries was quite fluid. City-states were more often the norm (in areas that had advanced beyond tribalism). I'd like to see Zoe explain better whether she wants this to be an iron rule or a guideline to be used as appropriate. Anyway, you've poisoned the well a bit on this one by editing the George Washington page directly rather than by using a Talk: page, which would have been more diplomatic. It's hard to take your side to the extent that you engage in ad hominem attacks. When someone's ideas are mistaken, it is more effective to attack the ideas than to attack the person. Attacking the person here is likely to end in banishment. I hope that doesn't happen, because I like your work. M Carling 21:34 Jan 27, 2003 (UTC)
The french wikipedia might find benefit in knowing precisely the reason why that user was hard banned. It is not clearly mentionned in the user page.
We understood it was related to image use, which could be under copyright. We would like to know more. Also, we would like to know if some pictures, uploaded by this user, and still on en:wikipedia, may be consider safe or not. example : File:EBeart-A.jpg.
