User talk:Norm/a4

---

"pwn" as a mainstream term

In Internet slang, you have re-instated "pwn" as a mainstream term for total domination. I have never gotten into a revert war, and I'm not going to now over something as inconsequential as this, but can you explain why you think this could possibly be described as mainstream usage? PhilHibbs 08:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Image:Fitting-expansion-card.JPG

Hi. Please remove Image:Fitting-expansion-card.JPG from related articles before tagging it for deletion. Images should not be tagged for deletion if they are still used in an article. - Tεxτurε 15:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Same for the other images you have tagged for deletion. They are still used by articles. - Tεxτurε 15:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. - Tεxτurε 15:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

demosoftware.net

Hi. Nice layout! Could you explain this edit?

Thanks, chocolateboy 09:06, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Githyanki

I added a VFD rather than a speedy delete request on purpose: Talk:Githyanki

Collaboration of the Week

Your vote for African art has helped bring about the article's selection as this week's Collaboration of the week. Please join in trying to make the article a feature.

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 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. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 14:10, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Peugeot

Norm, I dislike the appearance of your Peugeot pic arrangement. I think an article that starts with the pics strung right across the page is ugly. Much better, in my opinion, to have the pics down the right hand side as usual, particularly when more get added. What happens when, say, four more are added. Do we then have a solid block of pics clogging up the start of the article? I don't feel strongly enough to revert you but I thought you'd like to know my feelings - Adrian Pingstone 16:06, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A second point I forgot to mention is that the right-aligned system avoids the rest of the article being a massive block of plain text with no "eye candy". By running the pics down the right hand edge this is avoided, particularly as more pics arrive - Adrian Pingstone 16:18, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Whoa!!!!!

Hey! Sorry Dude! I didnt think this would affect the whole site!

Sorry about the mess, are you sure you can put it back the way it was?

-XJ

Marking image thumbnails as speedy deletes

When marking an image thumbnail as a speedy delete, could you include a link to image it is a thumb of? Thue | talk 14:56, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image copyright

It seems User:Dbenbenn has beaten me to it, there's now a GFDL tag on the image Boffy b 18:39, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)

Stub sorting policy

Please help me and others in deciding the stub sorting policy. Thanks!

See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Policy

-- AllyUnion (talk) 01:47, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ustub

Metastub already works for this. There are several problems with your template.

1. This assumes that the category for what you're inserting exists
2. This assumes that the category and the article has the same name -- not all stubs do. See math-stub for example.
3. Your stub would and could in effect create unnecessary categories and can create a lot of confusion.
4. Another problem is the whole limiting use of stubs per page.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to nominate your stub for Templates for Deletion because another stub does the same thing. Unless you wish to keep it as a redirect, please indicate so on WP:TFD. -- AllyUnion (talk) 09:57, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I am very angry that you listed a template for deletion simply because you don't understand the function of the template. I have posted an extensive explanation of the template on its talk page. Look carefully at the two templates and you will see the differences in function. Norman Rogers\^talk 01:47, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Function is a relative term. I meant function as it attempts to achieve the same goal, except that the Ustub template has too many technical limitations. If I were to correct or attempt to improve the template, it might turn out to be just as the same as the Metastub template, which is not your intention anyway. I did not want to deal with a revert edit war over the technical limitations of the template, because I know you created out of simplicity to get stubs sorted, somewhat as a way to improve the regular stub template.

Please do not assume that I did not understand why your template was created, although I simply said because another stub does the same thing, -- I have a tendency to imply a lot. You may question for further explainations, but I very much dislike for someone to assume something about me which may or may not be true. I viewed your template source before I listed it on WP:TFD, and I see a lot of technical limitations -- which I have explained further on WP:TFD.

I disagree with the creation and its technical limitations, as I have every right to. I believe that if the technical limitations were corrected, it might become a secondary metastub template. I also believe that, although your template was created with good intentions and good idea, in the long run, I believe it will cause a lot more problems. I had the common decency to notify you about my decision, and let you defend the template as the author's creator. I ask that you to calmly and rationally present your defense of your template, explaining why it is necessary to keep the template. -- AllyUnion (talk) 08:00, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)