User talk:Hroðulf
- Perhaps you're looking for Hrodulf? (not Hroðulf aka Hrothulf) See User:Hroðulf/disambuigation
 | |
| Wikipedia ads | file info – show another – #164 |
| Wikipedia:Babel | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
| Search user languages |
Rollback
I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. PeterSymonds (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Co-operatives
Hi Hroðulf -- thanks for your note on the co-op talk page today. Your work on co-ops has been great, and that puts you in a very small (and deeply misguided!) group making any progress on them. I hope you keep it up! Sorry I can't help you on the Scottish one you mentioned but I hope you can find more info and photos for it. Far too little of the history -- the co-ops, the pioneers, the practices, the challenges and achievements -- is recorded here (even though the future of the movement, especially in the developing world where it is still very much needed, could depend on it). As a matter of practice I don't rate articles I've contributed to Wikipedia, but I'd be quite happy to rate yours if you want to rate mine.Brett epic (talk) 01:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks Brett. One admin candidate caused a brouhaha recently by agreeing to review another editor's Good Article Candidate, in return for a review of his. There was no suggestion (that I saw) that the reviews were dishonest, but other editors still bandied about phrases like 'corruption' and 'off-wiki collusion'.
- In the meantime, I tend to assess articles from stub to B class as I see them, whether I wrote much of them or not. I can't imagine that is controversial, but I understand your reluctance to do so.
- Good articles, in contrast, I take much more seriously. When I saw an article that was clearly well above B class (Somerset Coal Canal - not a co-op) I put it in the Good Article Review queue. About a month later, an uninvolved editor came by and gave it its stripes.
- --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Plagiarism VPP comment
Thanks for the comment at the VPP thread on plagiarism. We are trying to move discussion on from there to Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism. Would you consider reposting your comment there? Carcharoth (talk) 11:46, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Private Equity Task Force
Hi, I wanted to invite you to become an inaugural member of the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force. I think this might be a good fit and your contributions would be welcome. This is intended as an inter-project task force to focus on private equity concepts, firms and investors. If you are interested, please visit the Private Equity WikiProject Task Force project page.
Also, please feel free to add the following banner to your user page:
- {{Userbox/privateequitytaskforce}}
I look forward to working together, if you are interested. Let me know if you have any questions.
|► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 22:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks. I have now watchlisted the task force page. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
- I added a number of additional resources to the project page that will help |► ϋ r b a n я e n e w a l ◄| (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Constituent country
There has been a long centralized discussion at Talk:United Kingdom, in which it was decided with 83.33% consensus that constituent country would be used to describe England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. However, users at Scotland are saying that they will not accept a consensus made on another page, so I would like to inform you that there is now a similar vote on the Scotland talk page. Cheers --fone4me 20:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
DYK
|
On 24 June, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lothian, Borders & Angus Co-operative Society, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
--Gatoclass (talk) 09:55, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Unitedlogo2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Unitedlogo2.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
WikiProject Cooperatives
Hi Hrothulf. Thanks for the invitation to join WikiProject Cooperatives. I will be glad to join and start contributing to the best of my ability. Regards, --Zlerman (talk) 10:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Lightbot
Hi, I was just wondering if you got a satisfactory response about the date linking business. I can't help feeling this is in the 'ignore it and it will go away' basket now, but perhaps that is ungenerous. It does seem to have annoyed quite a lot of people so you would hope there would be a better response than, ‘I’m right, you’re wrong’.
☸ Moilleadóir ☎ 08:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
- It seems that Lightbot was stopped on June 23, and Lightmouse is happy to engage in debate (User talk:Lightmouse#Bot; you also saw him at WT:MOSNUM). He did turn it on again and it made a couple of hundred entries last night (now stopped.)
- I wonder if there is a win-win to be found somewhere. The discussion at WT:MOSNUM doesn't seem to have progressed since June 24, but I have don't really have anything to add to what I already said.
- --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Cooperative principles
Dear Hrothulf: I have started familiarizing myself with the structure and contents of WikiProject Cooperatives in the interest of "bringing cohesion" -- easier than writing new stuff. One thing that struck me immediately is Category:Cooperative principles. I see that there have already been suggestions to merge all the specific articles in this category into Rochdale Principles and I have today posted my comment in the discussion on Talk:Rochdale Principles. However, there has been no response to Gobonobo's original suggestion from February 2007 to streamline the category by creating a new article Cooperative principles (distinct from Rochdale Principles), and nobody will probably pick up my comment either. Should we continue to wait for the discussion to develop or act now by merging the separate principles into one page named Cooperative principles, while keeping Rochdale Principles alongside (with necessary changes)? Regards,--Zlerman (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
- I, personally, think the idea of an article on Rochdale Principles separate from one on Cooperative Principles is confusing, as 'Rochdale' is kind of an arbitrary name given by whomever is writing a list, from the ones in the 1860s through to the 1990s Statement on the Co-operative Identity. However I don't have strong feelings, and if you think a new article is needed, then do it, or give some more people a nudge for their ideas at WT:WikiProject Cooperatives. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi again; I've added some stuff into this article, particularly the "Flemish Weavers' Cottages", but also the "Two Pigs", and I've tried not to make the latter too much like an advert. My impression is that it's missing a few things; no mention of schools or twinning arrangements, for example. Let me know what you think. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 23:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
- Good progress. Certainly still missing a few things: do you use the guide at WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements?
- Also, there is a to do list at the top of Talk:Corsham, but something broke in {{WPUKgeo}} a few months ago, so right now it is invisible unless you edit the Corsham talk page. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 07:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
- I don't write about settlements much (except Trowbridge, which is mostly copyediting and adding pictures) so I haven't seen that guideline; however, I will take a look. I'll also look at the ToDo list but I've got several projects running at present. I think I have a photo somewhere of the peacocks from Corsham Court wandering about the High Street- that's probably interesting enough to go in (it's unique in the UK as far as I know). I'll start a list. --Rodhullandemu 15:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Ep. 51
Hey. Episode 51. Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy. WODUPbot 04:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.
User name concern
Can you please take a look here and add your opinion? Bearian (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Northern Co-operative Society DYK
|
|
On 9 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Northern Co-operative Society, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Congratulations! --PeterSymonds (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Free works containing copyrighted logos are only considered copyrighted if there main purpose is to illustrate the copyrighted logo. Since, Image:100807fiestaPG-045.jpg is a hot air balloon containing a copyrighted logo used in an area discussing Stroud & Swindon Hot Air Balloons it is not copyrighted due to the logo as its primary purpose is to illustrate the balloon. However, if it was placed in the article infobox of Stroud & Swindon Building Society, it would be a primary image of the entire Stroud & Swindon Building Society and its copyrighted logo. However, Image:Melk_branch_1.jpg is copyrighted in its placement in the article because it is in a section discussing the whole Stroud & Swindon Building Society not its individual offices. If it was placed in a section discussing Stroud & Swindon Building Society offices then it would not be copyrighted even though it had a copyrighted logo. I hope this clears up the issue.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 15:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
2D signs Thanks for the clarification on signs and logos, Natl1. Is this explanation on a WP (or Commons) policy page or article yet? Good to know that individual uses really are free (and not fair use) if the positioning and captioning is ok.
While I have your attention, could I ask your opinion on the shop and bank signage photos discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Co-operative_brand&oldid=224005639#History ? I am still not quite clear whether it is free to use, fair use, or unfair use? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Fair use- It is not free because its primary purpose is to discuss logos not the buildings, but since it is being done in an educational context it is fair use.--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- The image is to discuss branding, which includes choice of colour (not copyrightable) and wording (too brief to be original text), as well as logos (copyrightable in the UK but probably not in the US in this case as it is just typesetting). That said, I agree with your conclusion. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Unusually shaped balloons I think I did not express my balloon question clearly, and it feels like I am picking on the editors of one article in particular. But my thought was: since the balloon's 3D shape itself is (arguably) not functional, it is probably a copyrightable work of craftsmanship, and so I was concerned the photograph is probably derivative of the shape of the balloon, and so needs a fair use tag, not a free content one. The law is an ass if it stops you photographing the airspace above your house (as it appears to) but if so, it would not be the first time the law has been an ass. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Pictures of copyrighted buildings (or balloons) are not considered derivative works and are not copyrighted because the buildings design is copyrighted. "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work – but only if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place."-Mary Cullen Yeager and Katherine A. Golden LLP: Owner vs. Architect: Who Owns the Design?--Natl1 (Talk Page) (Contribs) 16:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't there a U.S. case that says eligibility for copyright in the country of origin is pertinent? Which means Section 62 of the Copyright, Designs and patents Act 1988 for the house-shaped balloon (see also Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_Kingdom). The drafters of that clause were not thinking about balloons: if a balloon is a building, then it is free content (and we can put it in a gallery of balloons, or even use it decoratively!), but if it is a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship, then the photo is fair use in this educational context (as it is not permanently installed,) but other uses may be not fair use, or at least not NFCC. Grin! --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
No, natural philosophy is not physics.
Although physics in some sense developed from natural philosophy, natural philosophy is much broader than just physics, and as such does not really fall within the scope of the project. (If it were to be physics it should also be astronomy, geology, biology, chemistry, etc.) It is covered fine by the history of science and philosophy WPs. (TimothyRias (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC))
- Fair enough. It seems to me that natural philosophy is much more physics and applied maths than any of the others (except astronomy, which is a branch of physics, isn't it?). And, I think of Newton and Maxwell as the towering giants of natural philosophy. But that is probably my own personal view, and as you say, the other projects should attract the interested editors. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Corsham - Economy
Hi Hroðulf, you know every time I see this page, the more I feel that the Defence Section tends to overwhelm the rest of it. I'm not so familiar with it myself but do you think we have too much detail here? Some of these must be small enough just to give a passing mention, and the tabular format doesn't help, in my view. Any ideas on this? Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 19:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- I kind of agree but I am not much more familiar with it than you are. In real life, defence has overwhelmed the economy of Corsham for the last 70 years, as I understand from my reading, so overwhelm is probably unavoidable, but it could be a bit tidier: less of a list and more of an explanation of how many people play which roles. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 20:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for replying, I'll see if I can get some figures and then look at a rewrite. Otherwise, I think this has a good change of getting to Good Article status before very long. I plan next to write up the Town Council in the Local Government section. --Rodhullandemu 20:14, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
DYK 23/7
|
|
On 23 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Farm assurance, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Please de-confuse me. I thought the original unopposed by-election for the BNP was in April 07, and the full election in the last few weeks wasn't. Feel free to correct, but this is still very much a work in progress, and I think it's getting closer to WP:GA. I'll try to get over & do some photos in the next week or so. --Rodhullandemu 22:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
- Please don't be offended: I am happy to correct accidental errors now and again (as I did last night) but I never had the patience to get this to GA standard myself. I agree that you are making a lot of progress.
- The 2007 unopposed election of Michael Simpkins (politician) for Rudloe ward was part of the United Kingdom local elections, 2007. Thanks for the BBC link: it shows that the BNP had 2 or 3 candidates for Corsham Town Council that year who did not get elected. I did not know that. I suspect really good information on town and parish council politics takes a trip to the library or town hall.
- In July 2008 there was a by-election in the Corsham Town ward: which partly explains the 8 candidates.
- --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
- Not in the least offended, it's just that I misread the sources; apologies. However, it is now correct. The next thing to tackle is that list of military units, I'm sure it would be better as prose and could be cut down a lot. I'll see what the MOD website says about it. Cheers. --Rodhullandemu 15:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Signpost updated for July 14 and 21, 2008.
 |
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 29 | 14 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| From the editor: Transparency | ||
| WikiWorld: "Goregrind" | Dispatches: Interview with botmaster Rick Block | |
| Features and admins | Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News | |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation | ||
|
| ||
| Volume 4, Issue 30 | 21 July 2008 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly
Hello there! New: Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections. Have a listen. Also, if you haven't heard, all of the other Wikimania episodes are up and accessible through the homepage at http://wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 09:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
Use of flagicons
Beg too differ re your deletions.
Flagicons are a good idea, even though this is not a sporty topic, because:
- Helps teach the flags, especially where flags of different countries are similar.
- Helps find things, flags are easier to read than words.
- E. Brittanica probably doesn't use flagicons.
- Am copying others who think it is a good idea.
Tabletop (talk) 06:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Replied at User talk:Tabletop#Use of flagicons --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:23, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Constituency names
Hi, please see this discussion. Thanks, --RFBailey (talk) 16:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59
Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59: An Interview with Sue Gardner at Wikimania 2008 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page (at least one listener thought this could be the best interview ever), and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. WODUPbot 01:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60: Diplopedia has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page, and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
Neston Park DYK
Just had a look at this. Good article but you need to fix the bare URLs before it can be approved. Thanks.Nrswanson (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61: Corpus_Linguistics has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 06:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
You're receiving this because you're listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.
Grosmont and Hawkshead
Hi!
I see you've added Grosmont and Hawkshead societies. I have no verifiable information to counter these additions so I've not done an edit. It's just that I really don't believe they're still in existence. On checking a database of CRTG food stores, the one in Hawkshead is on a different street and managed by TCG N&NE so this could either be a different store or the current situation since a transfer of engagements, perhaps. Also, there's no store, at all, in Grosmont - was/is Grosmont a non-food society (like Langdale)?
I've seen the pages on the FSA and these make me doubt what I'm suggesting as when you look at the same register for United it's bang up-to-date. The Co-op Online website is not being updated by TCG and it can't be relied upon to be correct.
I hope you don't mind my question as I realise how it comes across as arguing against the proof you have provided!
Secondly, have you heard about Lothian, Borders & Angus' proposed transfer to TCG? If you don't beat me to it, I'll add something to those article.