User talk:Gpietsch
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, thanks for starting the Interstate 95 article. Cheers! --maveric149
I have also debugged a few articles anonymously. -- Gregory Pietsch
Hi, I just noticed your New Jersey Turnpike article. A google search turns up the same text at http://www.nycroads.com/roads/nj-turnpike/ ; do you have permission to use it here? We can't keep material that can't be licensed appropriately. --Brion 21:25 Aug 30, 2002 (PDT)
- Since I notice you're online, I thought I'd mention this again. New Jersey Turnpike is going to have to be deleted unless you can show the material is being used with permission. Please see Wikipedia:Copyrights about our license. --Brion 17:06 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)
I rewrote the page to avoid copyrights. -- Gregory Pietsch
There is a similar potential copyright issue with Interstate 99 (see the talk page). If you can get the original authors to agree to license the material to the GNU FDL, that would be great, since we could then port over the entire collection of Interstate descriptions to wikipedia.
I rewrote the page to avoid copyrights. -- Gregory Pietsch
- Thanks for the rewrites! Remember, it's always acceptable to link, and to use outside pages as sources of information for original articles, but copying without permission could get the project in trouble. And if there's material that you do have permission to copy (public domain, GFDL, or explicit permission from the author), don't forget to credit the original source, at least in the edit summary or talk page. --Brion 18:43 Sep 2, 2002 (PDT)
Why those particular New Jersey highways? If they're worth listing, they're worth a paragraph explaining whatever is interesting about them. (I'm assuming you know this, since you're including them.) Vicki Rosenzweig
Why not? I drive on them, I write about them. -- Gregory Pietsch
- I was trying to encourage you to do that--the list seems to be getting ahead of the articles.Vicki Rosenzweig
I edited the Princeton, New Jersey article to remove some dubious claims, like radio transmission 50 years before Hertz and Marconi. Vicki Rosenzweig
One claim was restored upon further review. -- Gregory Pietsch
Your contribution at Cargo cult programming is almost identical to http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/cargo-cult-programming.html Can you do something about this please, either by rewrite or by checking this source's licenses.
- I have checked the licenses, and it is public domain without restrictions. See http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/index.html Andre Engels
Hello there again. I noticed that some text in New Jersey State Highway 7 is the same as text at web.mit.edu/spui/www/nj/7.html. Do we have permission to use this text? --mav
I didn't know, so I removed the offending text. The whole thing wasn't really clear, IMNSHO, so maybe removing it made it clearer. -- Gregory Pietsch
- For the record, I do give permission to use anything from my site as public domain. If you had contacted me at the time, I probably would have said the same. --SPUI 02:26, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I love what you did with Battlefield Earth. I had the misfortune of seeing this "movie" on its opening day and I almost fell out of my chair laughing while reading your article on the movie. It is pretty hard to be NPOV about a movie that is almost universaly considered to be one of the worst of all time. I was the anon IP who wrote the second para of John Travolta BTW. --mav 05:11 Oct 6, 2002 (UTC)
Sometimes, it's really hard to be NPOV. I figure, if it's controversial, I'll just write it with a note that it needs NPOV tuning, because we all have opinions that get in the way. Really bad movies are difficult to write about with NPOV because one gets the sudden urge to be a movie critic. -- Gregory Pietsch
Hi there. I'm not sure if we should be importing things from the Jargon File like Evil and rude -- can they be more than definitions? -- Tarquin 12:38 Oct 11, 2002 (UTC) **bump** Tarquin 14:44 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)
Even if it's not more than a mere definition, I say we keep it. -- Gpietsch 19:20 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)
I'd rather consolidate the entires into a single page of computer jargon. Evil and rude has no real content, and it's very misleading to the average reader, who may not understand that this is a term used by a minority of people and only in a certain context. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, nor is it a dictionary of slang. An encyclopedic treatment of the subject would explain how and why these terms came about, how commonly they are used. -- Tarquin 19:25 Oct 15, 2002 (UTC)