User talk:Harvestman/Archive
Archive : december 2005 - march 2006
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Harvestman. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Welcome!
Hello, Harvestman/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here is ... one better than a real human, so feel free to drop me right there :) I hope you have fun on Wikipedia! --Master of Puppets(MASTER!MASTER!) 19:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
- Chopped a little your welcome. Thanks a lot anyway. Harvestman
- Strange, the welcome was fine in the beginning. Oh well :) --Master of Puppets 00:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
I posted one
Successsfuly did I
I'm not sure what you meant.
You said "The citation you give about that case is awfully true. I wonder what should I do if I discovered that everyone knows that I am in the papers"
Which cite? the one to John_Seigenthaler_Sr._Wikipedia_biography_controversy or one of my Yahoo message board posts? And I don't really understand the second part at all. Are you actually asking me for a response or is it just a rhetorical question? I'm not criticizing you or anything, I'm just confused.--◀Pucktalk▶ 13:47, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry for that confusion, answer about your reactions on such a case if you find it fit. I read that text and my reaction was emotional as well as rhetorical as you say. The text on your page is : "nobody changed it because nobody read it because nobody gave a rat's ass about an obscure nobody", concerning the John S. problem.
- Well, my overall reaction to the case was summed up in the rest of my message on Yahoo: "He is now more well known for that offending article and his whining about it than for anything he might have accomplished in his otherwise unremarkable life." [1] I suspect that at least part of his motivation for raising such a fuss in the first place was that the error went so long without being detected. He may have felt a bit stung by the fact that nobody noticed. If he were actually an important historical figure, rather than a footnote, someone would have noticed almost immediately. The fact that no one did is an indication that no one was interested in him. Now, however, he is famous, which is why I think that was part of his motivation.--◀Pucktalk▶ 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- rather true.
- Well, my overall reaction to the case was summed up in the rest of my message on Yahoo: "He is now more well known for that offending article and his whining about it than for anything he might have accomplished in his otherwise unremarkable life." [1] I suspect that at least part of his motivation for raising such a fuss in the first place was that the error went so long without being detected. He may have felt a bit stung by the fact that nobody noticed. If he were actually an important historical figure, rather than a footnote, someone would have noticed almost immediately. The fact that no one did is an indication that no one was interested in him. Now, however, he is famous, which is why I think that was part of his motivation.--◀Pucktalk▶ 23:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for your help in the traslation! I noticed your message in EJ's page; Czech is a definitively difficult language for me, and Internet doesn't have many free automatic traslators. If you need some help, whatever the problem is, ask me! --COA 23:40, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Flemish School
Sure, make the merge if you think it's appropriate. I must confess that I don't really know that much about art history -- that's just one of the articles I made because the title was in the Nuttall Encyclopedia. :-) -- Womble 17:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
- I think both articles are useless, at least in their current revision. I don't think the term Flemish School, as defined in the article, is still used by art historians. The correct term for the so-called "first Flemish school" is Early Netherlandish painting. It may be a good idea to write an article on Rubens and his followers (under the header Flemish Baroque painting or some such), but they don't constitute a "second Flemish school". The article Flemish painting, on the other hand, is very badly written. It should either be turned into a comprehensive article on the history of Flemish painting, from Jan van Eyck to Luc Tuymans, or simply deleted. Rembrandt or Vermeer are not Flemish by any definition of the word. Karl Stas 10:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
Personal Note
Harvestman, my condolences on the loss of your friend. But as to rumours, alls we can do is state the truth... for when all is said and done, the truth will remain standing.--Jamott 21:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
Barnstar
Hey, thanks for the star! That was a lot easier than getting the first one... I've gotta stop fussing with mathematics talk pages and spend more time on the science RD! So, did I introduce you to Celestia, or are you a longtime fan? Now I'm curious. Melchoir 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
- Awesome. Yeah, I was surprised when I found it too; it actually knows where all those stars are! Cheers, Melchoir 20:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Image:StÉtienne Metz.jpg
Hi,
I just saw your message here. I am the author of this pic and I confirm that I released it into the public domain. Also you normally do not have to download a pic from commons to upload it to a localized wikipedia. Using typical code should work out e.g
.jpg)
. Regards 85.212.152.234 Richieman
The image that you uploaded is helpful, but it has a lot of ugly compression artifacts. Could you retake the image and upload it as a PNG to avoid this problem? That'd make the graph look a lot nicer. Thanks in advance, Night Gyr 01:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
