User talk:Sigurd Dragon Slayer/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, Sigurd Dragon Slayer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! feydey 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Thanks for uploading some pictures to Wikipedia. I wanted to make sure you were aware of some of the requirements and good practices for uploaded images.

Pick an image name.

When uploading an image, pick a file name that is descriptive, and unique. Remember that many images may be uploaded about the same topic, and remember that names are case sensitive.

Source the image.

On the image description page, explain where the image came from. If you created the image yourself, then say so. If it's from the web, give a URL. If it's a screenshot of a movie or game, or a scan from a book, give the title.

Provide copyright and license information.

This part is a little bit trickier, but it's very important. The copyright of the image generally belongs to whomever created it.

If it's a photograph you took, or an image you created (modifying an image that already exists doesn't count) in software like Photoshop or GIMP, then you own the copyright. To upload it to Wikipedia, you must agree to license it under the GFDL (which allows anyone to use it, but requires that they give credit to the original author and requires that any further edit to the image be licensed under the GFDL as well) or release it into the public domain (which allows anyone to use it for any purpose without restriction.) Do this by placing an appropriate tag on the image description page, like {{GFDL}} or {{PD}}. Be sure to mention that you created the image. If you're using {{PD}}, you may also want to use {{NoRightsReserved}}, since there is some dispute as to whether one may grant items into the public domain.

If you didn't create the image, or the copyright somehow belongs to another party (like a screenshot, which you might "create", but the copyright belongs to the author of the movie or video game), then you need to find another tag that describes the copyright status of the image. Images used on Wikipedia need to be free for our use and the use of sites which reproduce our content. This means that images cannot have a restriction such as "only for use by Wikipedia", or "for non-commercial use only", or "for educational use". Images without a free license may be usable in certain articles under fair use, but such a use should be justified on the image description page.

Describe the image.

To another reader, the image may not be immediately understood. A caption in an article doesn't explain the image to a visitor who sees it on its image page. Put a brief explanation of what is in the image on the image description page, similar to what you might include in a caption on an article.

Some links to Wikipedia pages on this subject:

Copyrights, Copyright tags, Fair use, Image description page, Public domain, Images for deletion, Possibly unfree images, Copyright problems, Uploading images

Thanks again for your contributions. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at my talk page. feydey 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:180258.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:180258.JPG. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey 10:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IPU POV

Is there anything you found specifically POV in the Invisible Pink Unicorn article? You didn't leave an edit summary or any comments on the talk page, so I'm not sure why you tagged the article. Wyatt Riot 23:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it because in my mind it is POV, it gives no criticism what so ever, it seems like it was written by and for the followers of the said manifestation without taking into account the less glorious points about it (such as it being simply a cynical attempt to ‘mock’ a religion). I admit I should have added a summery. As for the talk page, I didn’t comment as I would have been accused of being a ‘Religious Fanatic’ rather than an observer looking in. It’s like a dark skinned gentleman going to a Klu Klux Klan rally, he’s bound to get into some bother.

I think the article needs a criticism section, as well as a less ‘completely complimentary’ mode of writing . I would re-write some of it myself, but that could be seen as biased as I am one of those that the ‘Pink Unicorn’ is attacking (a theist, albeit very liberal), even if I am not offended by people making up new deities which they ‘know‘ are not real…it‘s not my type of humour but that is not the point here (each to their own). The Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and Buddhist faiths...etc… all have criticism sections and the usually have insightful and well thought out arguments for any of the claims of the religions. Sadly as is becoming the case with Wikipedia the masses of ‘fans’ of certain subjects hold sway and thus bias replaces neutrality.

I wish some non-Pink Unicornists (whether an Atheist, Agnostic, or Theist) will actually contribute to the article and make it acceptable and within the rules of Wikipedia. Until then I am afraid it is not a neutral article and it is my opinion that the tag has to stay until some objectiveness is reached. I hope that explains why I took that course of action . Sigurd Dragon Slayer

I understand your unwillingness in this case, but don't you think it's a tad unfair to demand that an entry be labelled as POV while refusing to identify which passages make it that way? I guess I feel that using words like "apparent" and "perceived" goes a long way towards making it NPOV. I do believe that the first paragraph of the Dogma section could probably use some work, however. If you'd like to leave some suggestions or specific passages here or on my talk page, I'll see what I can do to work them in. Wyatt Riot 09:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not refusing anything I am just saying that the majority of the article (almost but not quite from it's premise is POV). I shall if you like pick out some of the worst parts if you like (and bare in mind I am not the first to accuse the article of this, if you do look at the discussion page you see that many have given warnings that have been unheeded so far!). Here goes: This isn't too bad but in the first sentence it says "The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the goddess of a satiric parody religion aimed at theistic beliefs, which takes the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink." whereas this is not POV in my opinion it is incorrect and should be re-written slightly as something like "The Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU) is the fictitious goddess of a satiric parody religion aimed at theistic beliefs, which takes the form of a unicorn that is paradoxically both invisible and pink." As you see and this is being picky, but I have seen no proof at all that anyone thinks the IPU is a real goddess and worships it...in other words teh 'followers' of it do not consider it real and thus it is a fictitious character rather than a genuine goddess who would be worshipped as real by her adherents. No for the real POV stuff (OK):

"invisible" and "pink" satirize the apparent contradictions in properties attributed to a theistic God (for example, God is often described as both totally just and totally merciful). - how is this necessarily a contradiction even an apparent one as just means fair, and some would consider merciful pretty fair! You see whether this is a contradiction is based on opinion, for instance if you believe in Retributive Justice I agree it could be seen as a contradiction, but if you do not believe in Retributive Justice then there is no contradiction. I think in this case it should say "that some perceive as a contradiction" rather than "apparent".

The IPU serves as a parodic demonstration that utilizing a lack of evidence as proof of a deity's nature is ultimately absurd; that by this logic the IPU is just as credible as God. - Does it really? I think this does need changing as it does imply that Theist beliefs are absurd rather than that they are absurd according to a few who use the IPU to attack someone’s personal religious beliefs...In conclusion I think this needs a minor re-write, in other words it needs rephrasing!

From the awful first part of the Dogma section:

The Invisible Pink Unicorn is a useful teaching tool. Is it though? Many would disagree...I for one would not like to teach someone to mock a belief if they didn't agree with it, so thus if I was teaching (not that I am training to be a teacher of Theology, RE...ect... I'm going to train for teaching English Language, but that is beside the point)a lesson about Atheism and/or Theism it wouldn't be useful to me. Others who do wish to attack Theism (for whatever reason) may also disagree with it’s use and/or find it absurd...we do not know that it IS a useful teaching tool. We only know that some consider it one. So the sentence should probably be The Invisible Pink Unicorn is considered by some to be a useful teaching tool. You see?

Also the worst part of the article is the fact that IT DOES NOT even have a section for criticism at all. You cannot tell me no one criticises this! All good Wikipedia articles on Religion, Comedy…etc.. have sections for criticism and/or controversies. Until the writing of the article is improved and the section for criticism is added then it cannot be a 'Neutral' article and thus is not consistent with Wikipedia's rules on article writing.

Thanks for hearing my concerns! Sigurd Dragon Slayer

I'll first mention that the POV tag got removed, and I can totally understand why. As far as your specific criticisms, here goes.

I would say that "fictitious" is redundant, as "satiric parody religion" is already used in that sentence. The opening sentence to the following paragraph also makes it clear that nobody really believes in the IPU.

I also don't see an issue with the second passage you cite. That people believe in a god is NPOV, because people clearly do. That there are apparent contradictions to belief in that god is also NPOV, because people have been making such statements for centuries. The sentence is simply saying that IPU is a satirical form of those statements. Nowhere is it claiming that such statements are correct or incorrect, at least in the sentence you cite.

You have a point on that third sentence. I'll take a look on my weekend (which happens to be in the middle of the week...).

The fourth cite may be technically correct, but it is a little misleading. I'll see about that (in addition to the "Dogma" section) as well. Wyatt Riot 23:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I thought the tag would be removed, as it does seem the clique owns the thread like so many these days. I am afraid until a section on 'Criticism' is made and/or criticism added anywhere on the article then it is POV! Sigurd Dragon Slayer

I have attempted to address Point 4, and I invite you to take a look. In the meanwhile, I'm going to copy your complaints to the IPU talk page, so that more editors can be exposed to them. -- CABHAN TALK CONTRIBS 22:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, very much! Sigurd Dragon Slayer

English people

I urge you to read the talk page section on related ethnic groups, there has been extensive debate about this. There is a Request for Comment (RfC) on this very issue on the talk page, feel free to make a comment there. Currently the debate seems to be about the extent of relatedness of the various groups to the English. Most people seem to think that this is a matter of opinion rather than fact. What we really need are proper citations that can tell us to what extent English people identify with other ethnic groups. Remember this is not a section about origins, but how modern English people see themselves. Currently most people who have contributed to the RfC agree with the section being removed untill proper references can be found. In this case it is disingeneous to call other users names (like childish), (besides the fact that this is a breach of Wikiquette), you are actually in the minority here. I urge you to read the talk page more thoroughly. All the best, Alun 12:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for the childish comment. Yes that was wrong but I didn't name the member, for that reason and I said the act was childish. I will comment in the section when I have more time. I am busy at the moment! Sigurd Dragon Slayer

I would appreciate your comments on the English people talk page regarding Areas of agreement. I would also point out that our primary concern at present should be to find good verifiable sources for related ethnic groups rather than engaging in speculative argument. Related ethnic groups are not defined by descent neither are the defined by linguistics. In fact we are forbidden from defining what related ethnic groups are by the no original research policy. Rather we need to find a reliable source that states what groups are related to the English people. I think it would be a better use of everyones time to engage in this activity (searching for sources) rather than just repeating our opinions on the talk page ad nauseum. I am quite happy for any group with a proper citation to be included on the article page. Cheers, Alun 12:12, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall do that. But I have to say I have never said that descent or liguistics are the defining factors, in deciding upon related groups. I have suggested in the case of linguistics that they are actually related to the culture however. I shall gather my sources. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

Help request

Hello there,

I was searching through wikipedia's "historians" page, and I'm hoping you might have the time to lend a hand with something. I'm trying to get re-involved in the Timeline of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict page. Now, I'm not entirely sure myself that this is the kind of thing that even belongs in an encyclopaedia, but I'm trying to do some work on this page. The problem I have with it right now, is that there are a number of edittors who dominate the editting process on this page, and frustratingly impose their own POV's on the "timeline". Sourcing is a particularly bad problem IMO for this page.

So if you are interested, it would be appreciated if you took at look at it, perhaps share some of my headache. If you know any othe wikipedians who might be able to honestly contribute to this page it would probably be of great help.

Thanks A student of history 04:28, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Celts

Wikipedians interested in Celtic History was a self-reference. If it exists at all, it should be in the Wikipedia: namespace. Re Category:Wikipedians interested in Cetlic history: I think Celtic might be a better spelling. -- RHaworth 21:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry my mistake. And as for my typo...it was just that...as could easily be seen. Sigurd Dragon Slayer

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot 14:09, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mr. SineBot. Great member! Sigurd Dragon Slayer 15:45, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]