
==Eastern Market== Hi there, I'm glad to see someone else adding local information on DC. I'm wondering whether we really need separate articles on the building and the neighborhood, however. These could just be merged into Eastern Market, Washington, DC, and the neighborhood description included in Capitol Hill, Washington, DC; I've never considered the Eastern Market to really constitute a distinct neighborhood within Capitol Hill, though I've only lived here a couple years, and may not be enough up on local parlance. If they are merged, I also don't think we need a disambiguation page for the Metro article—it's enough to include a mention of the stop in the article itself. Let me know what you think. User:Postdlf 03:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I went ahead and made the changes noted above—please User talk:Postdlf if you disagree. I also expanded the content a bit. User:Postdlf 04:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) ====Response==== I guess I was being a bit over-thorough -- I think including a paragraph on the building itself in the neighborhood information is fine. Thanks for making the change. I know Eastern Market isn't ''quite'' a neighborhood, but it's a distinct enough area of Capitol Hill that people say that they live near Eastern Market, or in the Eastern Market area. I almost do, so that's pretty much what I tell people where I live. The 8th Street corridor/Barracks Row area is also up and coming. :--User:Dablaze 05:29, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC) == Astrodynamics on Opentask == Hello. I've reverted your edit on Template:Opentask. Astrodynamics badly needs copyediting, and it's not a stub. -- User:PFHLai 05:23, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) : You've convinced me that Astrodynamics is not ready for copyeditting. I've posted it at WP:PNA. Hope the article will get fixed up soon. -- User:PFHLai 23:26, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC) == About the bold - italic marks == Hi there. Well, I just had the impression, that making those languages bold makes them look ''too'' striking. Bold words look like important facts or things like that. I preferred making them just italic, because then still you can spot them easily in the text but they do not jump into your eye like bold words. It was a nice idea though, didn't thought of that when writing the table. :) — User:N-true 13:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Christian Science == (This is a bit off-topic for the talk page.) To clarify the matters: The French government (I don't know about the Belgian government) does not, by law, recognize, salary or subsidize any ''religion''. As a consequence, it does not grant official recognition, nor classifies religions. This is very important to understand in the light of groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses that sometimes complain that the French government does not grant them recognition as a religion. [http://www.jw-media.org/region/europe/france/english/releases/religious_freedom/fra_e000623.htm] [http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040319/JWANDSOCIETY7/110150006] However, the government grants recognition to "1905 law organizations of worship". Note the enormous difference between recognizing a ''religion'' (which would imply granting legal recognition to a doctrine, and, for instance, adjudicating doctrinal quarrels through the judicial process) and recognizing religious ''organizations''. Actually, the process to recognize religion does not pay attention to doctrine and theology per se, a fact that is often shocking to outsiders from other countries: as far as I know, one can start a worship of the Sacred Carrot and get recognition. The main importance of this recognition is being able to receive inheritance and inheritance-like donations without being submitted to inheritance tax (which can go as far as 60%, as far as I know, for inheritances to random associations that are neither associations of worship neither associations of public usefulness). Government services then apply very formal criteria for this recognition. The association must, in practice and in statutes, solely organize religious worship, which is largely defined by what it cannot do, like running a commercial publishing house (the normal workaround is to have another association, with separate account, for running other activities). Another criterion is that it should abide by "public order", a loose concept largely defined by the case law of the ''Conseil d'État''. As far as I know, inciting people to refuse blood transfusions to their children in jeopardy, or to refuse them medical care, can be easily construed a breach of public order. A parent preventing his child from getting adequate medical care can be prosecuted on criminal charges, and I doubt it very much that the religious excuse is accepted. Advocating criminal behavior is probably against public order. The fact that Christian Science has long been considered a "religion" in the United States has absolutely no bearing on the case. Now, back to the parliamentary report. The parliamentary report listed a number of "cultish" behaviors, like inciting people to apply faith healing to their children. It also quoted some lists of "cults", which included Christian Science. It did not specifically list Christian Science in the main body of the text. Of course, a parliamentary report is not an official opinion of the government of the country, and has nil regulatory or statutory importance. It would therefore be extremely misleading to state that the French government considers Christian Science to be a cult. On the other hand, I think that it is a safe bet that the average person in most Western Europeans countries would consider a religion requiring people to renounce medical treatment to be a cult. User:David.Monniaux 18:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Article Licensing == Hi, I've User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project to get users to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing 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 Creative Commons 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 Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits 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: *User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered *Wikipedia:Multi-licensing *User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
:I agree to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:
:
I'm an editor, researcher, and an accomplished Yiddish_language#Yiddish_words_and_phrases_used_by_English_speakers, considering my tender age.
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Dablaze:
Dablaze
Dablaze
Dablaze
==Eastern Market== Hi there, I'm glad to see someone else adding local information on DC. I'm wondering whether we really need separate articles on the building and the neighborhood, however. These could just be merged into Eastern Market, Washington, DC, and the neighborhood description included in Capitol Hill, Washington, DC; I've never considered the Eastern Market to really constitute a distinct neighborhood within Capitol Hill, though I've only lived here a couple years, and may not be enough up on local parlance. If they are merged, I also don't think we need a disambiguation page for the Metro article—it's enough to include a mention of the stop in the article itself. Let me know what you think. User:Postdlf 03:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) :I went ahead and made the changes noted above—please User talk:Postdlf if you disagree. I also expanded the content a bit. User:Postdlf 04:38, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC) ====Response==== I guess I was being a bit over-thorough -- I think including a paragraph on the building itself in the neighborhood information is fine. Thanks for making the change. I know Eastern Market isn't ''quite'' a neighborhood, but it's a distinct enough area of Capitol Hill that people say that they live near Eastern Market, or in the Eastern Market area. I almost do, so that's pretty much what I tell people where I live. The 8th Street corridor/Barracks Row area is also up and coming. :--User:Dablaze 05:29, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC) == Astrodynamics on Opentask == Hello. I've reverted your edit on Template:Opentask. Astrodynamics badly needs copyediting, and it's not a stub. -- User:PFHLai 05:23, 2004 Oct 18 (UTC) : You've convinced me that Astrodynamics is not ready for copyeditting. I've posted it at WP:PNA. Hope the article will get fixed up soon. -- User:PFHLai 23:26, 2004 Oct 22 (UTC) == About the bold - italic marks == Hi there. Well, I just had the impression, that making those languages bold makes them look ''too'' striking. Bold words look like important facts or things like that. I preferred making them just italic, because then still you can spot them easily in the text but they do not jump into your eye like bold words. It was a nice idea though, didn't thought of that when writing the table. :) — User:N-true 13:32, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Christian Science == (This is a bit off-topic for the talk page.) To clarify the matters: The French government (I don't know about the Belgian government) does not, by law, recognize, salary or subsidize any ''religion''. As a consequence, it does not grant official recognition, nor classifies religions. This is very important to understand in the light of groups such as Jehovah's Witnesses that sometimes complain that the French government does not grant them recognition as a religion. [http://www.jw-media.org/region/europe/france/english/releases/religious_freedom/fra_e000623.htm] [http://watchtower.observer.org/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040319/JWANDSOCIETY7/110150006] However, the government grants recognition to "1905 law organizations of worship". Note the enormous difference between recognizing a ''religion'' (which would imply granting legal recognition to a doctrine, and, for instance, adjudicating doctrinal quarrels through the judicial process) and recognizing religious ''organizations''. Actually, the process to recognize religion does not pay attention to doctrine and theology per se, a fact that is often shocking to outsiders from other countries: as far as I know, one can start a worship of the Sacred Carrot and get recognition. The main importance of this recognition is being able to receive inheritance and inheritance-like donations without being submitted to inheritance tax (which can go as far as 60%, as far as I know, for inheritances to random associations that are neither associations of worship neither associations of public usefulness). Government services then apply very formal criteria for this recognition. The association must, in practice and in statutes, solely organize religious worship, which is largely defined by what it cannot do, like running a commercial publishing house (the normal workaround is to have another association, with separate account, for running other activities). Another criterion is that it should abide by "public order", a loose concept largely defined by the case law of the ''Conseil d'État''. As far as I know, inciting people to refuse blood transfusions to their children in jeopardy, or to refuse them medical care, can be easily construed a breach of public order. A parent preventing his child from getting adequate medical care can be prosecuted on criminal charges, and I doubt it very much that the religious excuse is accepted. Advocating criminal behavior is probably against public order. The fact that Christian Science has long been considered a "religion" in the United States has absolutely no bearing on the case. Now, back to the parliamentary report. The parliamentary report listed a number of "cultish" behaviors, like inciting people to apply faith healing to their children. It also quoted some lists of "cults", which included Christian Science. It did not specifically list Christian Science in the main body of the text. Of course, a parliamentary report is not an official opinion of the government of the country, and has nil regulatory or statutory importance. It would therefore be extremely misleading to state that the French government considers Christian Science to be a cult. On the other hand, I think that it is a safe bet that the average person in most Western Europeans countries would consider a religion requiring people to renounce medical treatment to be a cult. User:David.Monniaux 18:17, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC) == Article Licensing == Hi, I've User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project to get users to Wikipedia:Multi-licensing 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 Creative Commons 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 Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits 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: *User talk:Ram-Man#Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered *Wikipedia:Multi-licensing *User:rambot#Free the Rambot Articles project To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "
Dablaze
* * * * *
Sundrie Thoughtes on the Wickye-Pædia,
Beinge a compendium of uſefull knowlege and Morall Inſtruction,
Now that I've been on here a little while, I've noticed a few things that cause heated debate, if not outright conflict. If you care, here's what I think of some of them, in no particular order:
Consistency. A foolish consistency may be the hobgoblin of little minds, but a prudent consistency isn't so bad for article writing, IMHO. How many innocent brain cells must die in senseless edit wars over variants in punctuation, spelling, or various standards of notation? I'm always tempted to put commas and periods inside quotation marks, and change ''-ise'' to ''-ize'', but as jarring as some foreign spellings are, they're still no less correct within their own speech community, so I made a little rule for myself: I don't make wholesale changes in an article unless I'm doing a wholesale edit, in which case I feel justified in putting in my preferred style. Keeps me out of trouble. :-)
Besides, I'm a big fan of internal consistency within articles. It's a good system that makes sense for an undertaking like Wikipedia. And there's no way on earth that site-wide standards for every little thing could ever be enforced. Nor should they, IMO. Enforcing standards for the big things is hard enough...
British vs. American English: Doesn't really make a difference to me, unless a certain usage could cause confusion, like the differing meanings of "private school" and "public school." If something's obscure or "inside baseball," then I think it's ripe for editing. If, on the other hand, a usage is common to one variant but not to the other, I don't usually get my knickers in a twist. This is an encyclopedia, after all, and if something is unfamiliar, it's easy enough to look up. As long as one or the other is consistently used thoughout an article, then I don't really have a problem. Even if the Brits totally spell things wrong. :-)
\"Is Wikipedia America-centric?\" Probably. There's just so many more Americans than British, Australians, etc., and with a greater degree of internet access, I believe. I see people complain about this, but what are we supposed to do? I wonder if the Quebecois and the mainland French have a similar conflict on the French Wikipedia.
Misunderstanding of the concept of copyediting: I can't count how many times I've clicked on an Open Task for copyediting, only to realize that the article is barely written or poorly written, and needs more work before copyediting. Copyediting is what happens to a writer's final draft. A copyeditor does not (or at least should not) have to bother much with the meaning of the article's content. He or she is more concerned with introducing consistency of writing and format. A copyeditor will obsess about whether "million-dollar movie" should have a hyphen instead of what the movie is, or what the million dollars actually refer to. The writer and editor(s) will have already resolved that by the time it gets to the copyeditor. So if I click on something for copyediting that has text like, "Need to add XYZ to this section," or is written in barely literate English, then you'd be amazed at how quickly it turns into a stub or candidate for "needs more attention."
\"Objectivity\" — Ugh. Big subject. Will write later. Till then, Epistemology!— eſtabliſhed & maintayned thro. the —
Induſtrie & kindnesse of Learned Perſons dwellinge in remote LandsSee other meanings of words starting from letter:
D
DA | DB | DC | DE | DF | DG | DH | DI | DJ | DK | DL | DM | DN | DO | DP | DR | DS | DT | DU | DW | DX | DY | DZ |Words begining with Dablaze:
Dablaze
Dablaze
Sponsored links: praca, nurkowanie.
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
