User talk:Todd Coles

Tasks: start a new article • add basic, wanted or requested articles • add definitions • add metadata • edit new pages

Welcome to the Citizendium! We hope you will contribute boldly and well. Here are pointers for a quick start, and see Getting Started for other helpful "startup" links, our help system and CZ:Home for the top menu of community pages. You can test out editing in the sandbox if you'd like. If you need help to get going, the forum is one option. That's also where we discuss policy and proposals. You can ask any user or the editors for help, too. Just put a note on their "talk" page. Again, welcome and have fun! --Larry Sanger 00:57, 22 July 2007 (CDT)

Good edit

Hi Todd That was an improvement to the Stonewall riots article introduction. It is nice to see another eye spot what one can miss from one's own close perspective.--Ian Johnson 18:14, 25 July 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the kind words

Todd, thanks for the kind words. I'm just a bit demoralized because I'm running into the same editor and I'm running into the same problems. It's hard to say anything productive because I don't want it to be construed as a personal attack on anyone. I don't have a problem with anyone's politics or viewpoints. I just don't think some people fully appreciate the difference between a fact and an opinion. At this time, Citizendium doesn't have a way to handle that problem. Will Nesbitt 12:39, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

I realize this. What I think you need to realize is that this project is very young, and now that some controversial topics have been created, it will put the current system to the test. My request to you is that you continue to stand up for what you believe in, and hopefully CZ can grow from this. Nothing ever worth achieving comes easy. :) --Todd Coles 13:32, 26 July 2007 (CDT)

Roolz

...is made to be broken! come run your mouth Aleta Curry 23:38, 31 July 2007 (CDT)

Beer

Thanks Todd, I had cut and pasted from an earlier article and, whilst I have it on reasonable authority that at least one of the ABBA members was a regular beer drinker, external links to the ABBA websites were most thankfully removed by you from Beer.

Now. Where are my glasses (spectacles type glasses I mean). Cheers! --Ian Johnson 12:29, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

External articles

Hi Todd, thanks for performing a much-needed service--putting checklists on all those unchecklisted articles. I just wanted to point out, however, that if an article came from Wikipedia, we've only removed templates, and we changed just a few piddling details otherwise, it is then External (status=4), regardless of how well developed the WP version might be. --Larry Sanger 09:55, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Ok, thanks, I was unaware of that. I will revisit the checklists I have already put on and correct that. --Todd Coles 09:57, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Images

Please see Image:Joe_louis1.jpg for how I corrected the data there, the copyright data and the image location, and kindly follow the model when such is the case with an image in the future. All images on CZ must be held to a very high standard of precise documentation, for obvious reasons.

Moreover, regarding Image:Louis_medal.jpeg, it is a false but common assumption that just because an image is hosted on a U.S. Government website that the image is public domain (the data you uploaded to Image:William_cannon.jpg even states that not all info on U.S. Gov sites are PD). Only works authored by the U.S. Government and hosted on their sites are automatically PD. In the case of this coin image, it is unlikely it is public domain and likely that the coin design was created by a private citizen from whom the Mint has obtained usage rights--and the info at the Mint site states a generic copyright claim. To use the image of the coin you will need to find exact data on the site about that coin's design being authored by the U.S. government and link to it, or make a fair use claim. I'd try the former, first; failing that, use {{Fairuse-author}}.

Concerning Image:William_cannon.jpg, would you kindly link not to the image location on the server but to the context in which you found it? This is instructed in the text at Special:Upload, where it requires "*exact* data about where you got the image, usually a webpage such as http://www.acmemuseum.org/collections/history/sahara.html. People *must* be able to verify the data as found at the image's source."

Regarding Image:Discgolf_shot1.jpg, see Help:Images#Documenting_free_content_releases_and_images_by_permission for how to fix it.

Thanks!

 —Stephen Ewen (Talk) 01:23, 5 August 2007 (CDT)

Treaty of Union (1707)

It is my opinion that the article is properly titled Treaty of Union (1707). The Acts of Union were separate acts of the then separate Parliaments of Scotland and England ratifying the Treaty of Union. It is the Treaty which is paramount, for that was the subject of the separate Acts.

Basically, Scotland and England were separate countries at the time. Separate countries enter into Treaties when they wish to act jointly. Perhpas a page Acts of Union redirecting to Treaty of Union is appropriate.

When the Treaty article is completed, there should be a section discussing the debates within the Scottish Parliament as well as the question of Scottish public opinion regarding the Union. There seems to have been far less contentiousness surrounding the ratification of the Treaty in England.

Again, such is my opinion. I put the date in parentheses because I thought there might be more than one Treaty of Union (involving different countries), but maybe not. I don't know.

James F. Perry 12:18, 7 August 2007 (CDT)

Table on sandbox

I'd recommend changing the "Decision" column to something that requires less sentence syntax, example: I'd put [TKO][KO] etc and then just use a 1, or an X. It should help reduce the whitespace on the table and tighten it up. --Robert W King 09:03, 9 August 2007 (CDT)

Thanks for the advice. I've never made a table before so I'm just trying to get the hang of it. I will probably end up changing the date format, and shortening the locations some too. I was thinking of changing the decision and round field to something more simplified such as - Win / KO / Round 3, or Loss / Decision / Round 10. I think that is similar to what you are suggesting, but I don't follow what you mean about using 1 or X. If it's easier for you to edit a row to demonstrate, feel free to do that. --Todd Coles 09:13, 9 August 2007 (CDT)