User talk:ShaunMacPherson/archive1/
Welcome Shaun
It is good to have more economics majors around here. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you have any questions (or comments), you can ask me at my talk page. I try to log-on at least every second day. There are about 20 of us that regularly contribute to the economics articles (You will get to know us in time, which may not always be a pleasant experience), in addition to all the irregulars, of course. On my home page there are some links that you might find useful.
By the way, I visited Laurentian once. As I remember it, it was a beautiful campus overlooking a lake, with rocks and boreal forest all around. Is there a church or temple or something there that looks like a cement teepee, or is that just my fading memory cells adding more confusion between my ears? mydogategodshat 07:12, 5 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome! I hope this is the correct area to reply to you :).
I've been having fun editing topics outside of economics, esp. about anonymous p2p and futurist ideas (i am going to check out if you have anything on the Singularity) too. I'll find my way back to economics soon enough, I'll probably add some more to Political Economy, and Econometrics next.
Laurentian does overlook a lake and is out in the middle of no where so it has lots of forests. There could be a cement teepee, the campus is pretty spread out, I spent 99% of my time in the social sciences section so you probably have seen more of it then I have :).
Hi. Thanks for your contribution at John Stewart Mill, but we already have an article at the more usual spelling, John Stuart Mill. I made the former into a redirect to the latter. -- Infrogmation 07:12, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Thanks, I noticed that afterwards I thought no one had JS Mill on wikipedia :).
Hi Shaun,
Thanks for your work on Interdisciplinary, looks good. In general, it's always better to move a page (see the move page function on the sidebar). If there is a pre-existing page (like there was in this case), then you can ask a Wikipedia:sysops to do the switch manually (going on to Wikipedia:IRC is often the fastest way to do this). The reason we do this is so that we don't lose the complete edit history, and can't see who edited earlier versions which we need to, to conform to the GFDL. Morwen fixed it now. --Lexor 09:13, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
- Hi! Thanks, I just missed you in the IRC chat. I will check out page move functions :). Thanks for fixing that up, I will see you in interdisciplinary.
Hi Shaun
There is an economics article Labor market nominated for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. If you have the time, could you take a look and leave any comments that you feel are appropriate. mydogategodshat 04:10, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Art: Paintings[edit]
Hi, I put this stuff in Talk instad of User_talk zanimum. I dont think it that much of a problem, but here is my reply never the less:
We can rotate though his works every so often, although unless there is reason I think the origional dusk image from the article's founder should remain unless you have a reason otherwise."
Shaun. You are not the founder of the article on William-Adolphe Bouguereau by any sense of the measure, as three people worked on the article before you.
- I never claimed to be the founder, nor am I the one that put the Dusk picture there originally. Before you start editing willy nilly I suggest you have a good reason to change the images around. As I said in the discussion area, if you bothered to check:
- I think the Dusk picture should remain, it is more representative of his works, which are mostly nudes. If you have reason to change it from the origional picture then please let me know here. --ShaunMacPherson 15:23, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Even if you were, you have no more authority over the article than any other logged in or IP-only user of Wikipedia. Every user has the same amount of power in how an article should look; even Wikipedia's founder, Jimbo Wales, is no more powerful than anyone else. Even though I and 140+ others are "sysops", we have no more say than anyone else.
- As you have no more authority then any other person as well. If you feel the need to change the picture there then have the courtsy to give your reasons in the discussion area.
You have no more justification to have Dusk on his page, than I have to put The Knitting Girl. However, The Knitting Girl is clothed; although nudity is full allowed in the project, whenever avoidable, avoid. There is no written rule that says this, but it makes common sense, if both works are of equal quality, which they are, than why not have the image that most people would feel comfortable looking at?
- As i said before, and again now, his works are largly nudes. It is disingenuous to try and censor the artist he was by putting up non representitve works.
Besides, as much as I love the works that Bouguereau painted in his career, your gallery page is inacceptable. Unless there is at least a paragraph of unique text in each of the articles, it stands the chance of earning a place on Wikipedia:Votes for Deletion. However, I'm not the one to put it there. --
- As wikipedia has list articles with nothing more the lists, I think it stands that there should be articles with pictures i.e. galleries. If you think otherwise you are free to put that article or any other you think should be deleted on the deletion list. --ShaunMacPherson 20:38, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
- Okay, so it wasn't you who put up the image, but it wasn't the "founder", http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=William-Adolphe_Bouguereau&action=history. It was the fourth person to edit that added the image. Either way, the new image should satisfy us both, being nine nudes, but in a more tasteful composition.
- The lists have a purpose in Wikipedia, as a topic index. Someone looking for genetic order will find List of genetic disorders useful, because it leads them to wealths of information on genetic disorders. Someone interested in demonology, or mythology in general will be able to use List of specific demons and types of demons as a gateway to articles on the significance of each demon in their respective cultures. A List of Sesame Street characters, like any other list, will do nothing for anyone, except lead them to relevant, indepth information on Aloysius Snuffleupagus or Big Bird.
- My point is that lists lead to information this gallery just leads to pictures. While a picture can say a thousand words, encyclopedias should also say that for their reader. Mona Lisa, Whistler's Mother and The Kiss are other perfect examples. The latter doesn't isn't even illustrated yet, but it still works as an article. They explain the significance of the painting, on the artist or on society. They don't just show, they explain.
If you could get even 50 unique words on each painting, their significance, their technique, whatever, it would be perfectly acceptable and encourageable content. Right now, it's nothing. -- user:zanimum
- The issue of the gallery seems a seperate issue from the one that seems resolved now of having a representitive image up.
- As for the gallery, I have spoken with bureaucrats, sysops and regular users as a part of my regular chatting on the #wikipedia irc channel. Of opinions of the gallery I got, they were unianimous: galleries are an excellent idea. If you think, and can justify, a reason why it should not be an article then as I have already said, put up for a vote on the delete list. --ShaunMacPherson 18:34, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
-- "See this for inspiration... Nymphs and Satyr. -- user:zanimum"
Good article, I did a few too a short while ago, first 8 or so up to Cupidon on the William-Adolphe_Bouguereau list of paintings. The rest of the images are uploaded for the entire list but i may have to reupload them all since I used too short / common names for them. The website were I got the images, released under the GFDL, is here : ( http://www.ibiblio.org/wm/paint/auth/bouguereau/ ).
If a large scale effort to document a large portion of artists is going to be undertaken it might be a good idea to put it as a Wikipedia:WikiProject so the articles could be standardized, like the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums project.
(Painting's Name) (Artist's Name) (Date of Painting) (Peroid in Art; impressionism etc.)
I'm not sure what else should be on the list. I'll see if any people would be interesting in creating / running / helping or giving ideas for a wikipedia art/painting project. --ShaunMacPherson 05:48, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Re: Music #1's[edit]
What's up, Shaun?
I got our response to my #1 lists. I got the #1 hits of the USA from www.recordresearch.com. This website lists the #1 hits all the way back to 1955. You may have to find a website that lists the #1 hits of 1952, 1953, and 1954.
BigT27 05:19, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)