User talk:Jaknouse/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome to Wikipedia! Your expertise is our reading delight... --Ed Poor
Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need any questions answered about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. BTW, nice additions to fern. Cheers! --maveric149
Opps! Looks like there is already a Flood plain article. I like your spelling better (and so does Google). --mav
Suggestion about taxoboxes: Find the closest taxon on the same level or one different that has a taxobox, and copy that. For instance, I copied the hornbill taxobox from bee-eater, since they are both Coraciiformes. -phma
Thanks -- I just keep a taxobox template on my desktop now and copy it out, and have installed it lotsa places. --John Knouse
Jaknouse, please see Talk:Mexico. --Brion 00:04 Sep 1, 2002 (PDT)
- Jaknouse, please see Talk:Mexico, and this time stop being deliberately stupid. --Brion 11:20 Sep 1, 2002 (PDT)
- As I say, Brion, say what you mean. I actually did not know what you meant. I try to keep my language precise. And, in any case, if it bothered you on that page so much, you should have then created a blank page for each state and transferred the appropriate info. --user:jaknouse
- Jaknouse, if it bothers you that much, please make that link and make those pages. If you don't, I'll get to them when I get to them, because like everybody else here I am a volunteer. If you don't like my freely provided work, try to take the high road and do a better job than me. --Brion 19:26 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)
- You really just HAVE to have the last word, don't you? --user:jaknouse
Jaknouse, I have made an addition to talk:Pol Pot. I understand that you did not add the word again in the sentence of the main article being discussed, but I would welcome your opinion on whether it appears tendentious. If I am not misinterpreting you, you seem to be asserting continuous US support for the KR. If so it would be helpful if you could state the starting date. -- Alan Peakall 18:48 Dec 3, 2002 (UTC)
Please check your user page -- the foto is interfering with some of the information, including your email address.
--jaknouse
- Thanks, but there's no problem with it on my browser unless the text size is set too big for the screen-width, and then some of the text underwrites the picture. I don't consider the text as interesting as the picture anyhow, and the "E-mail this user" link at the bottom of the page will still get e-mail to me, so I'd rather live with the problem than fix it, altho I sincerely appreciate your telling me about it. BTW, when you signed your message to me, you used a pipe instead of a colon for the separator, so it linked to "User" instead of "User:Jaknouse" -- unless you meant to do that. -- isis 22:13 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)
- Hello, jaknouse. From the above, I'm wondering if you have the same problem I used to have. No one was ever able to tell me how to fix it, and in the end I only got rid of it by changing the "skin" I was using. Have you tried that? --Deb Jan 12
You had some questions of gravitons, I hope to have answered them.
Hello again. Your "skin" is defined on your preference page, and there's a choice of three. Personally, I prefer the "Standard" one, but, like I say, I had to change to "Nostalgia" for a while to resolve the problem with images. I still don't understand what caused it. Deb 21:19 Jan 29, 2003 (UTC)
I added the external link to try and avoid someone having to type out all the details of Apple singles, etc. Seems a bit of a waste of time to me when the information's freely available, complete with pics., etc. Have fun typing it all up!! User:PJT 02:51 Feb 27, 2003 GMT
In reply to:
I was strictly using the existing classificatory information in the individual articles. If you disagree with the classification used, then it's prior authors you want to argue with, not me. I was only inserting taxoboxes for clarity; these are used throughout biological pages on the wikipedia. I was not sure whether fungi used divisions or phyla; the use of divisions is an antiquated approach, actually, relying on the old, erroneous thinking that fungi are plants; we now know they're more closely related to animals.
Ok, sorry. I saw a bunch of articles get filled in really quickly, going past the layer which already existed, and I wasn't sure how far you were intending to go. The alternate classification schemes are indeed a matter for the article authors, so if you aren't going deeper that won't be a problem. One note: you may not want to link Domain, Kingdom, etc on the different taxoboxes. That's the way it's done in most cases, but that's because the ranks used to have independent articles. See WikiProject Tree of Life. My apologies for overreacting. Btw, divisions are still in use for Fungi. Their relationships are irrelevant to that - the whole division/phylum distinction is maintained only for traditional reasons to begin with.
--JG
Hi. Please don't change everything to US spellings. AFAIK, the US is the odd one out with "meter"; and Wikipedia uses both anyway. Also, if you want to change the name of a page, use the "move page" function rather than a copy & paste. - Tarquin 22:41 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
- Actually, from my point of view, you're a British chauvinist. The fact of the matter is that meter is a much more logical and phonetic spelling than metre. It's time you Brits or wherever you're from caught up with a bit of logic. I'm sure that we could revert to all kinds of ridiculous archaic spellings, but it seems to me that Wikipedia is about objectivity, and meter is the more objective spelling. Not to mention that we should use one standard spelling style, and the precedent was set with American spelling, not British.
--jaknouse
- With all due respect, I think that is an unnecessarily insulting response. People really tend to see comments starting with "you Brits" as provocative, just like when some hothead on this start of the Atlantic starts off with "you Yanks" - it never ever leads to peace, co-operation and harmony. There isn't really a "fact of the matter", just national spelling practice, and I am not sure, either, that such a thing as a "more objective spelling" really exists. The Manual of Style says Spelling style - For the English Wikipedia, either American or English spelling is acceptable. It is in no way a requirement, but it probably reads better to use American spellings in articles on American subjects and English spelling in articles on English subjects. - so if you wanted to change "metre" to "meter" the first thing you'd need to do would be to change that agreement, which I fear would cause many problems. If we all start changing spellings to suit our local preferences then it's going to get very difficult, and whilst you might want to start a campaign to standardize Wikipedia on US spellling only, I think you would find limited support for this. I honestly think it would have been wiser to not change the spelling in the first place, and to not come back with these rather strong comments in the second. If you are unreasonable and make these remarks you will find that it does bring out of the woodwork stupid British people who think they own the language, that America is inherently inferior because it is newer, etc, and all they contribute is trouble too, and then we have a transatlantic flame war, which is to be avoided at all costs. :) Nevilley 07:21 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
- For the sake of completeness I should add in case it is not clear above that I would be just as disapproving of someone who gratuitously changes "color" to "colour" on the grounds that it is "right" or "better" - we just don't do that. Nevilley
- That was meant to come across as tongue-in-cheek. Doesn't anyone have a sense of humor? You'll find that I HAVEN'T changed the spellings on most pages I've worked on, first of all, and when I changed the spellings on the meter page, there was actually a mix of spellings on the page, and there was no distinguishing between the two spellings. When I changed the spellings, I added (British spelling: metre), and the same for kilometer, which kind of distinguishing nobody had bothered to do earlier. I am, however, fairly serious about using logical spellings, and I frequently use lite and nite and such in my own correspondence rather than the ridiculously-archair light and night.
- --jaknouse
- thanks for that. There is a real problem with detecting irony online sometimes, and I couldn't see your tongue in your cheek! I do have a sense of humo[u]r (delete as optional) but lots of people on here are so - erm - direct at times that it is difficult to know when it is safe to deploy it. No hard feelings. Nevilley 17:07 Mar 12, 2003 (UTC)
- Since I can't edit Tarquin's page since it's too large, I'll add another comment here. Yes, metre originated with the French, but, then, they pronounce it "metre". The English do not pronounce it "metre", but rather "meter". In consideration of this, then we should properly use the French pronunciation all the time, not the English pronunciation.
- --jaknouse
Good job on trail. -Smack 04:37 1 Jul 2003 (UTC)