User talk:Renamed user efB5zCgPvkrQ7C

Archive diffs

Diffs'll do. Nov 7/06 boo! November 2006 - June 19/07 In between Aug 27-Oct 2/07 another [1]

Tennyson pic

Which way he is pointing doesn't bother me, but I saw there was a palaver about Priestley's pic over at his FAC page and didn't want you falling foul of the same argument. As it is a mezzotint the original would have been facing the other way, so could you flip it round without imposing on the artist's intentions? Or is the art in knowing it would be reversed in the reproduction? Or perhaps it was engraved from an original painting that faced this way? What is art, anyway? Why are we here? Good question, I'll go and have some tea. Andplus (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your vote

Thank you for participating in my RfA, which passed with a vote of (53/0/1). As a token of my appreciation, please accept this bowl of tzatziki. I feel honored to be trusted by so many of you. Wikipedia is such a large community, that my acceptance in the face of such large numbers truly is humbling. I will use my new tools to continue the tasks for which you entrusted them to me. Gratefully, EncycloPetey (talk) 18:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres

Thank you for asking--I'm in favor! Ewulp (talk) 02:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Re. Welcome Message

Thanks for your message of welcome. I'm still finding my way round so the help links will be useful I think. Cheers. Welham66 (talk) 12:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Veropedia answer (I hope)

[pasting original post http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danny&oldid=174061137:] Hi Danny. In the past few days I've seen a number of references to Veropedia on Wikipedia. Can you help me understand how these references—which include userboxes, Wikipedia:The Core Contest/Entries, and a Veropedia user who carries a link to an an essay about Veropedia in his or her signature that was recently proposed for deletion—do not constitute using Wikipedia for advertising purposes? The Wikipedia article on Veropedia states that Veropedia is "for profit".

WP:NOT states "Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any organizations and does not set up affiliate programs. See also Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) for guidelines on corporate notability. Furthermore, those interested in promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so."

Thanks for your time. –Outriggr § 03:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Per your question to user:Danny (or user:Dannyisme)

Userboxen that advertise membership or interest in all kinds of things are generally tolerated - This user uses WindowsXP, This user uses Firefox, This user likes to drink Bosco - whatever. Generally userboxes in the userspace are supposed to be used to describ yourself and what you're doing on Wikipedia - involvement in Veropedia is relevant to what you're doing on Wikipedia. As someone who generally despises userboxen, I won't defend them long, but I'll say that it falls well within usual userbox practices. Sagaciousuk, who made the veropedia userboxen, also have userboxen for Firefox, Vista, Apple, Google Earth, last.fm, Windows Messenger, Gmail, GIMP and facebook and this is pretty typical.

The Core Contest is motivated by our interest in copying articles to Veropedia, but it is a contest to improve articles on Wikipedia ... although it's run by a few Wikipedia users and the prize funding comes from an external source, it's still a Wikipedia contest being held on Wikipedia. Wikipedia:The Core Contest doesn't even mention Veropedia (although one of the subpages does). Compare with the Wikipedia:Bounty board or ... I forget, the other one. It's within the usual behaviour, but it is, in essence, a "Wikipedia Event", not advertising for Veropedia. I think it compares reasonably with, say, the little messages from donors that run across the tops of our screens and whatnot. It's not the first time Danny has sponsered such a contest to improve Wikipedia content, see Wikipedia:Danny's contest.

As to CMoreschi's essay, user essays are usually given some latitude - I read the MfD as the community accepting it as within tolerable behaviour. My feeling is that this falls within the usual latitude given to userspace.

The "short" of it is that Veropedia is somewhat different from different from most cases because although we're an external company, our goal is (in large part) to improve Wikipedia article content, here on Wikipedia. So we "veropedians" engage in a lot of activity here on Wikipedia writing, cleaning up, verifying articles, what have you. So there will be some messages around about what we're up to and why we're doing what we're doing and so forth. This really isn't what "WP:NOT#FREEADSPACE" is talking about with respect to advertising.

Of course, I've no idea whether you'll find these answers satisfying - frankly, I'm rather surprised at the number of people angered by "The Core Contest". It certainly may be the case that because Veropedia is doing a lot of good work for Wikipedia people here are cutting us some slack, but it seems to me that these things are all within the usual, accepted behavioural standards. If you're really convinced we're engaging in inappropriate advertising, do try to make the case - we do pride ourselves in trying to be good encyclopaedia writing Wikipedians, to the point where Veropedia was speedily deleted by a veropedian as A7 when it was first created, after some discussion in #veropedia. Yes, it is true that we're looking for editors to help us improve articles here - I don't think this is an abuse of Wikipedia, whereas treating it as a free advertising service is. Anyways, hit me back if you want to chat about it more. Cheers, WilyD 04:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed reply. –Outriggr § 05:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No problem. If you've any followup questions or concerns, please ask. WilyD 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I think WilyD answered rather comprehensively, so there is no need for me to rehash these points. In your follow up comment, you asked whether the WMF has sanctioned our activities? I woud think that question is better asked of the Wikimedia Foundation itself. Danny (talk) 11:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

The point may also be well worth noting (regarding your followup) that Veropedia's main activity is not re-using content (a la about.com) but improving Wikipedia content here on Wikipedia. This is the main reason our name crops up a fair bit, I think. WilyD 14:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)