lol Susan Mason
That was a fairly impressive display of sarcasm; the gravestone was a nice touch. --Uncle Ed
Some comments on your excellent Concorde pic:
First point: The pic description (seen by clicking on the pic) is blank. As the supplier of the BA pic, I would be interested to know the source.
Second point: Just as a personal opinion, I think pics look a lot better embedded in the text, preferably on the right hand side so as not to disrupt the text flow against the left margin. Are you willing to move your pic? I can do it for you if you wish.
Third point: I don't much like the heavy caption text, I think it stands out too much. Paper encyclopedias don't have this heavy emphasis. However, I have changed my caption to match.
I only mention all this stuff because I'm interested in graphic design.
Best Wishes -- Arpingstone 23:02 Mar 14, 2003 (UTC)
Hi there. just a few points:
and finally, has something really happened to user DW? -- Tarquin 09:24 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
Thanks for the contributions to the French cities articles. This being said, I do not want to start an edit war with you, but I believe that your systematic disambiguation of French cities' articles is not appropriate. Why disambiguate when the name is only held by one place? olivier 16:20 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
While starting the article Communes of the Val-d'Oise département of France, you added this comment: "(pasted two hours of work for a list of all communes Val-d'Oise. Hope this is okay). So FYI, this article already exists in the French Wiki. Copying it from there and adapting it to the format of the English language Wikipedia would probably have taken much less time. This being said, I still disagree with your systematic disambiguation. olivier 17:32 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
Hi - the reason that US place names are given in the form "Place, State" is, as I understand it, because that is how they are most often referred to in print and speech. This is largely because there are many US placenames duplicated across several states. This isn't the case with British, German, French, etc places, where normally only the name and not the county, département etc, is given. For that reason we have Springfield, Illinois but simply Doncaster not "Doncaster, South Yorkshire". --Camembert
I've run the list of communes through a search&replace to change the links. A place ssuch as Magny-en-Vexin is already disambiguated: the "en Vexin" part distinguishes it from another Magny somewhere else in France. -- Tarquin 18:21 Mar 15, 2003 (UTC)
Don't write on my talk page. I won't be responding to you. -- Zoe
Black Widow, please re-read what Camembert writes above. there is no need to include the name of the department in the article name for a french commune, UNLESS something else shares the name & there is an ambiguity. I'll fix the other pages when I get round to it; but it really isn't that much work: all it takes is a search&replace in a text editor. As for your "hours of work" -- lists of french communes sorted by department are available in many places online. I do hope you're not typing these out from paper; if that is the case then you really are wasting your time. I hope this matter is now closed. I find your "DW - murdered by the wikipedia mafia" image particularly disturbing, and I would rather keep contact with you to a minumum. -- Tarquin 20:30 Mar 18, 2003 (UTC)
Reply to Tarquin:
Regretfully, I do not accept treating one country different than others, and an encyclopedia in fact exists only to teach. Why would you be against me doing that, when I am the one who did 90% of the work on all lists of French Communes and you screwed up a few? You haven't given a legitimate reason and to some it might seem that you base your statements solely on a desire to do things "your way". Give Wikipedia users substantive reasons for discriminating against France, England or other countriues outside the USA? (Note, I did the Entire list of all Canadian communities.) And, if you can "fix" things so easy, why did you just delete one or two and leave a mess? That kind of participation in Wikipedia is certainly not helpful, it is only destructive. Some might call that hypocrisy. Too, another very important reason is to avoid what already is a major problem on Wikipedia -- linking to wrong articles. (Quite honestly, I find it incredible that I have to explain this.) Once you create an article, it pops up in 1 to 100+ other places. I note that very very few at Wikipedia (and I came across it again today several times) both to do a search and correct links. I do every time an any article I post. Note the job done to distort my claim on Neufchateau. Once you have the article, it creates a massive amount of work to fix ALL the links. But, list the place with its name and county/departement etc, you reduce false links by 99%. False links DRIVE away newcomers to Wikipedia who dismiss the site as worthless. )Particulary when it is so slow.) And, the Mafia are people who force their will on others for their own personal gain. 97% of the late DW's articles were never logged in as he didn't need anything other than the satisfaction of helping make Wikipedia a valid, just, non-discriminatory encyclopedia. I shall change things back so that Wikipedia treats ALL people equally unless you can tell everyone why it should not. Thank you, and God Bless. User:Black Widow
Hi! from Adrian. As with the Concorde caption, I very much dislike the bolded caption style you've used on "my" map of the route of the River Seine. So I hope you don't feel too hurt if I revert it back to a gentler look. -- Arpingstone 23:01 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)
Imagine all the fun after GW starts WWIII!Susan Mason
I agree that it should be Toulon Departement Susan Mason 11:04 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
Hi Black Widow, I think you must be referring to the comment that I removed from the Rachel Corrie article, I wasn't removing it because it was an anonymous comment but because it was a comment. I think that the period around now is probably going to be the time when the most people are searching for the name 'Rachel Corrie' and I think that if they end up at the Wikipedia article then it should look like an encyclopaedia article and not a discussion. I personally don't think that text in capitals and in braces belongs in an article so I moved it to the talk page. If the person who had added it had been a signed in user I still would have moved it but probably have titled the change Removing comment by User:XYZ to talk page instead. Also, I felt that the comment wasn't NPOV, SHE WAS CLEARLY VISIBLE TO THE DRIVER can't be shown to be true unless the driver wants to join the discussion, for all we know he was looking over his shoulder. That last sentence sounds a bit childish and pedantic written down but I can't think of a better way to write it I'm afraid. Anyway, happy editing -- Ams80 16:37 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)
Hi!! Can we agree on a common stance on picture captions. I would suggest that one or two-line captions are centred (looks smart), for example Chopin's grave at Pere Lachaise, but captions of three lines or more are kept left-justified, for example Severn Bridge. I think centring of multi-line captions looks strange. After all, a caption is a mini-article about the picture so why should a longer caption be centred? What say you? -- Arpingstone 17:53 Mar 19, 2003 (UTC)