User talk:Irene Ringworm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
Contents |
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:60sfcircus.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:60sfcircus.gif. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- Fixed with rationale Irene Ringworm 05:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Copyright tag on a user page?
Why do you have a copyright template on your user page? If you are intending to show that something on your page is licensed, that template won't help. We can't allow fair use stuff on user pages. If you have questions about this, Durin is very good at explaining it. His talk page is User talk:Durin. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:17, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- You should either use the official sandbox (go to search and type "WP:SAND") or a user subpage like User:Irene Ringworm/Sandbox. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:35, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] B.C.
No hay problema. Be prepared to be challenged on the fair use argument on the strip(s) you uploaded. Not from me, though, as I take a broader view of these things than wikipedia does. As far as editing goes, there is a lot of info in the "Editing help" link you can see while editing, and which opens another window so you can go back and forth. However, what I know I've learned mostly be the occasional example. Wahkeenah 03:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stub sorting
Hello Irene Ringworm,
I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.
You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.
If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! P.S. Great work on Wilhelmy plate! — jmorgan (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Rr triad.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:Rr triad.PNG. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 23:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adam Lyal (deceased)
You tagged the article with Prod again. Look maybe a script would help you notify the creators of the articles. And also remember when a Prod is contested the tag cannot be put back. Please notify the creator of the articles before proding anymore articles.
Add this to: Irene Ringworm/monobook.js
importScript('User:Dycedarg/easyprod.js');
importScript('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu');
importStylesheet('Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Add LI menu/css');
It opens a new window to notify the creator. So I suggest using Firefox or turn off the pop-up blocker.
--Parker007 17:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- After the Prod tag is removed, you have to use the process Afd, that is articles for deletion! --Parker007 17:42, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Christian right and Religious right
If you're doing a news search for the one term, I would suggest you also check the usage of "Religious Right", which is far more common. The articles discuss the reasons for the semantic distinction between them, and the lack of such by others elsewhere. My theory is that the dominance of the Christian component within the US-RR movement and the prevalent "America is a Christian Nation" position is the reason the distinction between the two is less made by those on the right than on the left: lack of understanding or recognition of such a conceptual distinction. However, that's unproven personal opinion.
Having the two wikipedia articles separate and noting the imprecise informal use as synonyms seems about the best alternative that I can see, even though it's a major headache. Abb3w 19:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] SAXS
SAXS will certainly not give any crystallographic information, but the only length-scale condition on diffraction is at the small end; it is just that the effect is not normally noticeable. My understanding (based on my notes from a workshop the other year; I have not actually done any experiments in the field, so take it for what it is worth) is that it is based off the Bragg equation with variations in electron density due to e.g. particle size substituting for the variations caused by a repeated unit cell. The length scale being probed can be nano up even to micro (at some point it gains the descriptor "ultra-small", but I think that that is a purely qualitative distinction), but there are measured peaks close to the direct beam due to constructive and destructive interference, which to my thinking makes it diffraction. See also: google it.
I think that it would be defining XRD too narrowly, but I would be ok with a move to a related techniques section; just a link to Category:X-ray related techniques would probably not be useful, though.
By the way - good job separating XRD from the x-ray crystallography article, I had been wondering how to make that article more cohesive and balanced. Eldereft 19:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Addendum - here[1] is an internal report page from Spring8 (Japanese synchrotron) clearly describing the technique as diffraction, with image. Eldereft 23:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Editing
If you know of other people in the field who are more important, please do add them to the general article on the subject, which obviously needs great expansion. If they don't have articles, please try to write them. if the wording of this article needs adjustment,adjust it. Take a look at the numbers i just posted on the article talk page, and we can continue the discussion from there on that page. It is not a private matter between us. Normally disagreements about importance or relevance of content are solved by compromise. If they can't be, they end up by having to ask someone else to arrange the compromise. Usually a suitable wording can be found by the combined ingenuity of the editors.
About editing in general, I have no particular investment in any one individual article. I'm just editing based on the general standards, and I can be wrong about who invented what, and I do not attempt to judge precedence. All I do is summarize what I see in the sources. The way to go if one does want to discuss who did what, is to put in quotations from outside sources saying so. I just care about the general standards, and don't want to see them diluted by relying on opinions of editors--myself foremost. There's even topics in my own field where I do have what I think are well founded professional opinions, but I do not include them and I even avoid working on some of the topics. I trust my own opinions no more than anyone else's, and except for what may have appeared in peer-reviewed publications they have no place in WP. Editing is a technical job. I think I often do it Ok. and I also know I sometimes make errors.
The only thing I personally have strong feelings about is evaluating notability for scientists by the positions, and publications, and citations, and that alone. Discussing notability is a combination of a great reliance upon accepted standards together with a little on common sense. As a start, I've learned it is not a good idea to say on a talk page that one will nominate it for Afd unless.... just ask for improvements, and if you find you don't get them and you think you can convince others, nominate the article. Then we can discuss it where such things should be discussed, on the AfD page, not between two eds. on their talk pages. Bilateral arguments get too personal. Personal quarrels rarely produce good articles. DGG 06:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I'm what the call an inclusionist -- about most topics. I will usually support the inclusion of a borderline article, but if in the discussion it appears that it is below the borderline, I change my opinion and say so. I'm not the most extreme one around, and i dont feel that way about all classes of subjects. But I do about the academic world, because I think we're severely underrepresented here. If i really dont think they make it, I try to discourage them. (Clarke, frankly, was borderline, I really supported it for his legal work,not his scholarship--but its harder to judge legal work--I didnt expect to succeed. Our MD, I took the statements at face value as the articles tended to support it. ) (And I very much am an inclusionist about pseudo-science even though I personally hate it., because i think the best way to expose it is to let them speak their mind. ). And I am probably an ultra-inclusionist about politics and religion, because I think we have no business trying to judge. Other things, less so. there's a continual shifting balance on these things, as you'll see. I take the articles one at a time. And I think of myself to some extent as an advocate: I will make the best case that can be made, and if the rest of you don't buy it, I go on to the next. The truth emerges from dialectic.
- See you at AfD, I think rather often.(smile) DGG 07:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ada AfD
It does look like I got it all wrong. But since almost all the votes are keep anyway, I think any reconsideration on my part would be quite unnecessary. Cromulent Kwyjibo 22:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
