User talk:Dd-b

Thanks for coming to my talk page! Please put new stuff at the bottom, that's where I'll look for it.

   Dd-b 16:27, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump. Cheers! --maveric149

-- Hi

can you tell me the parts on the article of "Flower wars", that no make sense?, so i will fix them. I have two problems, English is not my language, and i have a diferent background, so sometines i asume the readers knows some things...

thanks Nanahuatzin 17:29, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

mmmh.. i forgot another problem... i write faster than I should... :( Nanahuatzin 17:30, 15 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

request larger version of RAH image

Concerning Image:Ddb-371-14-200.jpg---is there any way you can scan a bigger version of that picture? (I assume you're the one who took it.) It can be thumbnailed on the Robert A. Heinlein page, but I'd like to have a better version of it available. Can you scan it at 750 pixels wide or thereabouts? Like I said, it can always be thumbnailed.

(And could you upload it with a slightly more descriptive filename, e.g., Heinlein.autographing.at.WorldCon.750px.ddb.jpg? I get nitpicky about these things, but it helps when I'm scanning the image list looking for obsolete thumbnails and whatnot.)

Thanks again for your contributions! Grendelkhan 17:53, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

I've got a larger version prepared, will upload shortly. Sorry to be so long in noticing the request!

Unfortunately my nitpickiness on file names is colliding with yours; I make a fetish of preserving the same filename for all instances of a given picture that I distribute, so that when I encounter it later or someone asks me about it it's easy to track back to what photo that actually was to begin with, and hence to find my master copies, and, with work this old, the actual negatives.

But thinking about it, I can just make the filename even more unwieldy and accommodate both of our desires about it, I guess. I hate to make other people's work harder when there's a solution!

Dd-b 05:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Copy safe?

Have you released Image:Ddb_392-32.jpg under the GFDL? That little copyright symbol makes me wonder. -Idiotfromia 01:25, 1 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there's a GFDL release in the "special instructions" field of the IPTC info in the uploaded copy of the photo.

Sorry I took so long to notice this, I must have missed the notification email when you posted it.

Dd-b 05:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

your comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy deletion criterion for unsourced articles

That page is inactive, and discussion has moved on (proposed deletion for unsourced articles was a followup), but I felt I ought to respond. The main problem with trusting expert knowledge is that you don't know who's really an expert and who just says they are, the whole EssJay scandal is case in point. Plus, wikipedia isn't supposed to be the place of first publication for new knowledge, it's just a summary of what's already known. Therefore, you skip both the problem of verifying identities and weeding out false information by sticking to what's been published. Otherwise, we'll spend all our time telling what expert opinion is correct instead of just checking the cited book or paper against the facts in the article and saying 'yup, verified.' It's not an obsession, just a recognition that the knowledge we publish has to come from somewhere, and people who aren't experts need to be able to tell if it's correct. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge comes, in the end, from people. When the experts disagree with a published article, most often the article is wrong (either was always wrong, or expert opinion has changed). I could see getting more interested in requiring citations of sources when there's a war going on between competing claim-to-be-experts; short of that, though, it's a hoop. Articles should IMHO never be deleted for lack of sources. Dd-b 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]