php-deluxe.net - description Ellmist

Ellmist

= Archives=

= Article Licensing =

Hi, I ve started the all of their contributions that they ve made to... #...all U.S. state, county, and city articles... #...all articles... using the Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. So far over 90% of people who have responded have done this.

:Nutshell: Wikipedia articles can be shared with any other GFDL project but open/free projects using the incompatible Creative Commons Licenses (e.g. WikiTravel) can t use our stuff and we can t use theirs. It is important to us that other free projects can use our stuff. So we use their licenses too.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the template (or for . The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

:Option 1 :I agree to all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below: : OR :Option 2 :I agree to , county, or city article as described below: :

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace with . If you only prefer using the 14:38, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

= Proprietary games =

Please don t take this as an attack, but can I ask why there is a category that you are putting listings into Presuming it means non-open source, that s going to be an enormous category (i.e. nearly every game ever released), and I think that s a bad idea.

If that s not what it means, could you explain it Thanks! -- 05:29, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. You have the right idea with respect to the purpose of the category. I have temporarily stopped putting articles into this category because you brought up this point. However, enormous categories are not necessarily bad; for example see 05:40, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

: True, though in 06:15, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Genre subcategories are a great idea when there is an obvious genre. -- 06:19, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Could you please direct your efforts on Open Source/Proprietary SW somewhere else but Games There is no specific purpose towards categorising games in these two specific ones, other than Open Source/Proprietary. This would mean that 99.9% of all games would enter into Proprietary games. It might make more sense to only have a specific category of Open Source games. 08:48, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

==My own suggestion==

I also noticed the category. Aside from being a lot of work, it s terribly inspecific. Games such as . *-- 05:55, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have convinced me to rename the category to 05:57, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:I still think the category does not belong at all because it is almost entirely, if I may be so frank, useless. Moreover, the very definition of a proprietary game is unclear. For example, Doom is both open-source and proprietary! It is open-source because the code to the engine is released under the GPL, which is for all intents and purposes the entire code of the game, yet Doom is proprietary because the ) 07:31, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry that it took so long to reply. I agree that this category should be deleted because the response has been overwhelmingly negative and the viewpoints respectable. -- 06:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

== My suggestion too ==

I think that it would make more sense to have the general category 16:30, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)

:Without reply from Ellmist I propose reverting all his edits and removing the proprietary games category. 13:02, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

= Swedish County maps =

Hi! I just noticed your comment on 10:07, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you, Jao. -- 02:42, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

= =

Hey there! Can I just check if you intend to work more images into this category or if have just set things in motion for other editors to contribute It was just a bit weird for me to see my photo so near to the President! ) 02:18, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, both. I will add images in the future, and others may as well. -- 21:07, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ellmist. I ve just reverted your addition of category Images of people to a picture of a dog, which shows a small part of a person in the background. Firstly I wonder if it would be better to restrict the category to pictures where people is the main subject (that would still probably be an enormous number of pictures) but failing that at least the fact of a person is shown.

I m sorry about that. I agree with your reversion. Thank you. -- 22:11, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

= software-screenshot =

I see on 01:06, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

I just made that tag. I have added it to the list you mentioned. Have a nice day. -- 01:13, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

=Return of the Untagged Image project=

You were kind enough to contribute to the

=Screen shoot !=

Hello, Im

i just add interwiki FR in because we v got this problèm ! *Screen shoot template *all screen shoot catégory thanks a lot 18:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

:-- thanks a lot Bayo

= =

Thanks for the message. I put a link to the Newcastle Knights website, the image s source, is that enough Please reply here or at my 08:05, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

= Issac Asimov --> Isaac Asimov =

Just looking for some education. There seem to be two pages named Issac Asimov , both in article mainspace. You created one as a redirect to the other. May I ask why And how can this even be — 23:17, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

Oh, dear, I m so embarassed. And I used to know the difference, too. But when I went looking for it, I couldn t even see it. I had to flip back and forth between the two links you gave me to spot it. And to think I consider myself his fan. {blush} Well, I ll just go over my recent edits and see if I can t clean up my mess. Thank You! — 21:53, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

= Capitalization of Headings =

Upon looking at the history of it would appear that you originally wrote the manual of style section on headings within pages. In that section you said that headings follow the rule, Capitalize the first word and any proper nouns in headlines, but leave the rest lower case. That sentiment is still expressed in that section of the Manual of Style to this day. To my mind it is incorrect in that it deviates from normal English language usage.

About a month ago I posted on the talk page of that section of the Manual of Style asking for someone to post a reference that supports the way that the Manual of Style is written. In that time period no one has done so. Today I had a look around the web and I found that the Government Printing Office s style manual directly contradicts what you said there. To quote section 3.39 of The United States Government Print Office Style Manual 2000 :

3.39. All principal words are capitalized in titles of addresses, articles, books, captions, chapter and part headings, editorials, essays, headings, headlines, motion pictures and plays (including television and radio programs), papers, short poems, reports, songs, subheadings, subjects, and themes. The foregoing are also quoted. [bolding of relevant words is mine]

So, with that manual of style, my education, and the usage in texts that I read contradicting what you said, and also the fact that no one has actually cited a manual of style that supports the text you posted I feel I have a strong case to change that part of the Manual of Style. Please let me know where you got the sentiment of that sentence you originally wrote from. 17:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

:Further, to quote the Chicago Manual of Style , 14th Edition:

: In regular title capitalization, also known as headline style, the first and last words and all nouns, pronouns, adjectives, verbs, adverbs, and subordinating conjunctions (if, because, as, that, etc.) are capitalized. Articles (a, an, the), coordinating conjunctions (and, but, or, for, nor), and prepositions, regardless of length, are lowercased unless they are the first or last word of the title...

:That is certainly contrary to the text in the Wikipedia manual of style. 17:47, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

::Not my discussion, but I ll weigh in if you don t mind: Ever since I knew of any Wikipedia standard for headings (almost two years) it s been to capitalize only the first word (and any proper nouns, of course). Changing it now would only cause chaos. Who said we have to follow the Chicago Manual of Style On a personal note, on my own website I ve used the only-first-word style ever since I began in 1995... Then again, I also put punctuation outside of quotes , so... you know... I m not one to slavishly follow conventions. - 19:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= =

I realise your intentions are good, but it gets pretty damned annoying to have people with no apparent intention of helping resolve this ongoing situation dropping umpteen template messages on talk pages and expecting us to pull a solution out of thin air. We ve been trying to work out how we can deal with the idiosyncracies of Australian copyright law in this area (concerning official photographs of politicians) for months. If you ve got any ideas, please let us know...else please leave us alone. 05:18, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC) :It s from the parliamentary website, just as nearly every single other picture of an Australian federal parliamentarian is. Such a surprise. 05:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= =

Hi Ellmist, thanks for the query, does the updated info satisfy your requirement. 16:32, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= Houston, we have a problem... =

I ve been told that one cannot legally release ones works into the public domain (see 17:48, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

= Source of polish counties maps =

All images (maps) of polish counties was created by me .. for example

Source = My Paint_Shop_Pro :) -- 20:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

= My talk page is not your talk page =

Please don t remove comments from other people s user talk pages. I understand why you might want to consolidate some discussion in other places, and I realize that [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=User_talk:Dcljr&diff=14783532&oldid=14708034 the stuff you removed from my talk page] did consist of your own comments, but I d like them to remain on my talk page, if you don t mind. - ) 09:22, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

= lots of edits, not an admin =

Hi - I made a list of users who ve been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren t admins. If you re at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an * immediately before your name in ) 18:22, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

-- 20:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

=Arthur Wellesley image =

Ellmist, Hi. A little while ago you requested info regarding this image, which I provided, See item a couple of articles up. . I now seem to be having a problem with a sysop and another user, both of whom appear to have a history together, in that they keep removing the image from the page, see page history. I assume to have their own POV only, there are a number of reverts already today by them. Could you take a look and see if there is anything wrong with the image, that makes it unfit for the page:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Wellesley%2C_8th_Duke_of_Wellington . It was at the top but after their multiple reverts and comments on the discussion page I am reluctant to put it back. (3RR Policy). I note from 5 July 2005 18:00 (UTC)

:: Hi, Thanks for getting back to me. 7 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)

:: The change of copyright tag is useful, thank you. I have put a deletion request on:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Request_for_immediate_removal_of_copyright_violation. 7 July 2005 10:41 (UTC)

::I now appear to be getting personal abuse from on my talk page and on the 8th Dukes discussion page IE:

You are completely disgusting, you know that The original version of the image which you uploaded didn t have the caption on it. The version I put up was exactly the same as the image which you originally put up and said was fine to use so long as we didn t defame the Duke. You do not get to win an argument by default. Until you put back up the version of the image without the caption, I am going to keep the image out of the article. 7 July 2005 15:18 (UTC)

I assume that this user is a sysop and as such should not be allowed to act this way. 7 July 2005 15:41 (UTC)

As this is the message placed on my talk page by [user: John Kenny]] I can only assume that he is being personally offensive and immature.

Additional comments from like this:-

I said on the description page that if you didn t like it, I would delete it, you asshole. You are a completely absurd person, fuck you. 7 July 2005 15:05 (UTC)

BTW, the caption is not part of the image, and you don t get to decide the caption for an image just because you upload the image. Your version of the image is not going to be in the article. 7 July 2005 15:11 (UTC)

Also from the page history list:-

(cur) (last) 15:07, 7 July 2005 John Kenney (Wow, that Richard Harvey sure is a prick, huh)

This sort of personal attack from a Sysop is very damaging to the Wikipedia name. 7 July 2005 16:13 (UTC)

I also now note that he is working his way through, and deleting, images I have uploaded to other pages, such as those of the 6th and 7th Duke of Wellington Pages. ~~

= Image source =

Oh, hi, just wanted to say about the image copyrights. Most the pages in my area 19:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

= Categorization =

Just wanted to let you know that your User page wasn t vandalized. I am trying to help clean up the Wikipedians/Kentucky subpage. It has been replaced by Category:Wikipedians in Kentucky. Thanks! 19:57, 7 September 2005 (UTC)