User talk:Bodnotbod/Nov06

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simon Munnery[edit]

Hi there, Bodnotbod. I too, have begun to specialise in Wiki pages dedicated to British comedy. Maybe you'd like to give my Simon Munnery page the once over to make sure that everything is as comprehensive as it aught to be? - User:Angry_Candy.

Seems good to me. The style of writing is more akin to journalism than encyclopaedic, but I think that's a good thing for entertainment bios, personally. I can't really add anything. I didn't really get along with Attention Scum!. I understand Stewart Lee was still smarting from the shoddy scheduling the series got about five years after it finished. --bodnotbod 22:22, Jul 11, 2004 (UTC)


Pejorative labels[edit]

I seem to be drawn to these. The latest one I'd want to make is pseudoscience, but I know that I'll then be a sort of Troll Mecca. I figured it might be best to at least qualify it a bit. Maybe something like topics in skepticism, but perhaps that's too weasel wordy.

I figure a lot of possible categories are going to be controversial, probably on articles that are already the battlefield for multiple edit wars. Anyone got any thoughts on my specific proposed category, or the broader problem? --bodnotbod 23:34, Jun 29, 2004 (UTC)

But what indeed is wrong with ?pseudoscience?, Botnotbot? The following dictionaries and encyclopaedias all have articles or items on it:
  • Dictionaries:
  • Merriam-Webster?s Online Dictionary
  • Encarta World English Dictionary
  • Cambridge International Dictionary of English
  • The Wordsmyth English Dictionary
  • The American Heritage Dictionary
  • Infoplease Dictionary
  • Dictionary.com
  • Ultralingua English Dictionary
  • Encyclopedias:
  • Encyclopedia of Pseudoscience
  • Bartleby.com (The New Dictionary if Cultural Literacy)

They can't all be misled into ill-using the English language? (;-). I think the word is well-established. Dieter Simon 00:12, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think what he means is that if he had to expound on pseudo-science he would need to mention "controversial" topics , ex. Creationism, which would attract trolls and know-nothings. -- Simonides 00:34, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)


Sorry for my wrong-end-of-the-stick bit. The "pejorative label" thing threw me a little, you know, the "unfortunate connotation in a name"? I wish you luck with the category and can see it fill up nicely, having only just recently witnessed the back-and-forth thrust of "Alternative medicine" and its talk section. Dieter Simon 21:39, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Hi, I moved this from the pump as it was time to archive it and didn't know if you'd seen all the replies yet. Angela. 23:24, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Jet Audio[edit]

This sounds like a codex issue. You might want to either: 1. Make sure you are using the most recent wma codex, if you are, then any player that will use it should play wma files, there are several open source ones. Or, 2. download the most recent version of Windows Media Player. This will include the codex, and Jet Audio should use it if it is available. Let me know if that helps, or feel free to email me if there's anything else I can do. Mark Richards 15:23, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well, I said that downloading WMP would be the easiest way, if you don't want to do that there are other ways to do it. I take it you tried this [1] and it told you to install the latest WMP? This is an open source version of WMP, which may install the latest codec - could you point me to a link which has the file and I could take a look? Otherwise try installing the latest version of some other open source media players - generally they will update the codecs when they install and other players will be able to see and use them. The most difficult thing is to manually install them. Let me know how you do, Mark Richards 15:38, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

How to get images permission[edit]

Hi Bodnotbod. Last month you contributed to a discussion on the Wikipedia:Village pump about How to get images permission (see [2]). Since there were lots of people with questions, I created a Wikipedia:Finding images tutorial with some tips and hints. Let me know what you think. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:09, 15 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Did I? Christ I must stop drinking. --bodnotbod 01:29, Jul 17, 2004 (UTC)

Categories[edit]

VfD pages still need to be listed on VfD as that is where people are voting. However, for speedy deletions, you just need to add {{delete}}. It only needs to be listed at Wikipedia:Speedy deletions if it is not clear why it is a CSD. Stubs can just have {{stub}} added to them. These don't need to be listed anywhere. Angela. 20:59, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)


Napoleon[edit]

See Nap. Talk : Vincent 23:46, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

As far as courtesy is concerned (your comment on my talk page) well, please note that you also reverted my edit without discussion, and more importantly you amplified it: when I noticed that all the new "Bill and Ted" type additions came from you, I was miffed, and that's when I decided to create the page right away. Note that I showed you the courtesy of keeping all your text in the separate article, and that I qualified the link using your words "as a by-word for mental ill health" even though I strongly feel it is inappropriate. : Vincent 02:29, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Re your posting on my talk page, OK by me. : Vincent 06:27, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)


'S Up[edit]

Thats ok, i didn't mean it in bad faith neither. Sorry. At least on the bright side, it has a sense of infamy for folk who do take it the wrong way. And people so rarely read that stuff unless they contribute to the page. Nowt to worry about. The way I saw it, you were being sarcastic towards me, which I took in good humour (and i actually did check out yer page, took one look at that picture and decided it probobly WAS good natured sarcasm), and I responded appropriately. Also, though there is an insult to you, there is also a lamentation of my crap spelling stored in this database for ever more. Chin up. --Crestville 17:39, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

  • Glad yer didn't take it the wrong was, cuz i checked out yer 'disagreement' with that Napoleon feller. Pretty brutal. But funny.

--Crestville 18:45, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Re: Pac-Man[edit]

You're welcome. --Zerbey 02:49, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

warra twat[edit]

Yeah, it seems quite petty on his part. I mean, why bother deleating what you put, when other people have put stuff of a similar nature. I think if anyone in history stands out as a questionable hero it must be Napoleon. The only people i can think of who would praise him are the French, and even then he crippled their economy. Maybe that guy is American and just dosn't get the severity of Napoleon's potential. He could kiss the precious American Ideal of 'Liberty' goodbye had Napoleon not been stopped by Wellington (a REAL hero, though certainly not infallable) --Crestville 17:46, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't really know much about Napoleon. Certainly not enough to know whether I would think he were basically a good man or basically a bad man. So all the stuff I wrote was from a neutral starting point. But I think I like Napoleon slightly less since that minor argument over the popular culture section. ;o) --bodnotbod 17:52, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Lords Northcliffe & Rothermere[edit]

Hello! I believe that the correct forms for article titles are:

In the articles themselves, the above forms (with the middle names included, if you like) should be used for the first line. Thereafter, however, the individual should be referred to as "Lord Northcliffe/ Rothermere" (unless, of course, one is writing about the individual before he became a peer). The rule of referring to "Lord X" applies to all peers, other than Dukes. -- Emsworth 19:32, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User page[edit]

My response is on My talk page

User page[edit]

My response is on My talk page Ilyanep (Talk) 16:46, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

User page Revisited[edit]

I did a little work on my user page. Does it render correctly on your pc? (btw, the old revision rendered correctly for me on 10x6 res at Mozilla and IE, so...dunno). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 18:44, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

as always...my response is on my user talk page. I promise I'll look into the matter eventually (I procrastinate a lot :D). — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 19:04, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Attachement theory and neuroimaging[edit]

Hi there,

I'm afraid I'm no expert on Attachment theory, but your page seems very well written and is a good summary of the strange situation. My only suggestion would be more on Bowlby's original work, and perhaps even Harry Harlow's work with monkeys and subsequent criticisms. I'll go about looking some of this stuff up if I get a chance.

As regards to your query on neuroimaging...

I've been wondering recently about why it is that we routinely X-ray people for internal physical problems but rarely brain scan people with behavioural difficulties or mental illness. Am I right in assuming it's largely a matter of cost?

It can be a matter of cost, but largely it's because they do different things and scans are routinely used in hospitals for the purpose of diagnosis.

Mental illnesses and behavioural difficulties tend to be diagnosed on behaviour, so a brain scan wouldn't be useful in making a positive diagnosis (although they might use it to rule out another diagnosis, i.e. to make sure the behaviour wasn't the result of a brain injury). Also, although some differences in structure and function have been found between the brains of people diagnosed with certain mental illnesses and those without, these are not reliable (some people with these mental illnesses will not show these differences) and so tend only be investigated by researchers interested in exploring brain function. Of course, this may change in the future, but this seems to be the current state of play.

Hope this helps - Vaughan 09:51, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A suggestion[edit]

I noticed this on recent changes User:Bodnotbod/Mental illness and the British Royal Family. I take it you are working on this article and will move it to the main namespace when finished. Then you'll have to get someone to delete it from your userspace. A better way is to have a personal sandbox. User:Bodnotbod/sandbox. Put all your onging work in there, then you never have to get it deleted. _Just a suggestion theresa knott 22:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If you'll forgive a further butt-in, and as you're concerned about reaction, I'm not sure most people would classify "epilepsy" or "mental retardation" as "mental illness", and many think that George III's illness was physical (porphyria) albeit with behavioural symptoms. By actual scientific measures (inbreeding coefficients) the House of Windsor's degree of inbreeding is not particularly notable. See [3] for serious inbreeding. For inbreeding to be of much consideration in physical or mental defects it has to be fairly recent - the marriages of distant cousins are basically irrelevant - except in cases where a specific recessive genetic trait is being examined. And a pattern of institutionization of epileptic or mentally deficient people is perhaps more indicative of society's views toward them than it is of any one family's view. Just stray thoughts!.... - [[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh's talk]] 22:59, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why it couldn't be moved to the main namespace as long as you get your facts right, and present the info neutrally. Get the article in as good as shape as you can, move it and see what happens. theresa knott 23:07, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd certainly intended to note that epilepsy wouldn't be classified as a mental illness, but that it was (maybe, haven't looked into it enough yet) regarded as one at the time. Anyway, sheesh, give me a break... I've not even started writing it properly yet ;o) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 15:09, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)
I know it's a work in progress. That was a critique not a criticism :) - Nunh-huh 20:05, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Admin status?[edit]

I'm thinking of nominating you. Would you like me to? [[User:Theresa knott|]] 11:18, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm drunk at the moment, and apparently opened the window for your talk page... don't remember why, but it's worth noting that I would support you for admin too, even after I'm sober. Tuf-Kat 05:50, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)


OK what it means is - roughly speaking you do all the 'orrible cleaning up jobs. There are lot's of these jobs to do, which is why we need all the trustworthy people we can get. Job's that I do include:

  1. dealing with vandals - this is a thankless task, and you need to be calm, not easily riled, and it helps to have a good sense of humour. I have vandalism in progress on my watchlist and also regulaly watch recent changes looking for vandal edits. I warn nicely, warn sternly, then block if they ignore my warnings. As an admin you get roll back privaleges which allow you to revert vandal edits with one click of a button.
  2. Helping with deleting. This is a nice task as you often get thanked. Non admins post requests for pages deletions on Speedy deletions or the VP so they can move pages or they've uploaded an image in the wrong file format.
  3. Speedy deletions - I check New pages for very small pages by non logged in users (<<100bytes - these are usually test pages and can be deleted straight away. (also unusually large pages by non logged in users which more often than not contain a test image)

Admin jobs that I rarely do:

  1. VfD deletions - I used to do these but haven't done any in ages. They are a pain, you need to count the votes,and make a judgement - is there consensus? delete the talk page, delete the page, archive the vfd debate, then remove from VFD.
  2. Page protections. I do protect pages from vandals occasionally but don't personally go in much for protecting for edit war reasons. You can easily see edit wars on recent changes, but you're not allowed to protect pages you involved in. This again is an often thankless task, because you will always protect "the wrong version".
  3. Editing protected pages. You can edit the main page! Cool! You can also edit other protected pages, but you are not allowed to do this for edit war protected pages.

That's about it really. Admins can come in for a lot of stick sometimes, you will probably be accused of being a member of "the cabal" by the trolls, have your user page and user talk pages vandalised, have trouble makers impersonate you by logging in as e.g. BodnotBod, have calls to have your admin status revoked by the likes of IM. You'll also have to suffer a vote -which might go against you. The rewards might not be worth it, but for me, it's nice to be a "trusted" member of the community. Theresa Knott 18:27, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your reply[edit]

I've replied on my talk page (To keep the conversation all in one place). Theresa Knott 22:31, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Category:Alcoholics CfD[edit]

Hi Bod,

I noticed that you were concerned about the deletion of Category:Alcholics. I must say, I hadn't noticed there wasn't any archiving on WP:CFD (is that normal?) - discussion on Alcholics was still around about a week a go or so - check [4].

It looks like there wasn't much discussion. However, it falls into the general purview of concerns over POV categories discussed over at Wikipedia talk:Categorization and various previous WP:CFD such as Category:Gay people.

A lot of it comes down to the question, "is this a useful categorisation, or is it better served by a list". Various people are using categorising as equivalent to a labeling mechanism, which has particular problems with POV topics when there are no opportunities to discuss shades of grey. -- Solipsist 21:57, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. I just want to ensure that a decent policy comes out of all this (if it hasn't already - I need to do seem reading on the various category pages, I've been offline a few days). Having now read the various discussions around GLBT etc I am now feeling a bit calmer: I am just miffed that I missed out on the chance to defend my babies.
I suppose it's just that I don't normally do things that rub people up the wrong way, and now here I am with 3 categories that people seem to feel are unacceptable. I hope I can chalk it up to categories being a fairly new phenomenon and perhaps I was slow to pick up how they should be used... but it is fairly embarrassing on the day Theresa Knott asks if I want to be nominated for adminship ;o) (I think I'll delay on that for a while...) --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 22:26, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)


"I am just miffed that I missed out on the chance to defend my babies" - oh dear, oh dear, oh dear: that's wrong headed thinking. Under GFDL, we none of us have no babies here :-) But I know what you mean, and from the picture on your user page I can see how you might be attached to Category:Alcholics ;-)
Truth be told, WP:CFD probably is trundling along too fast at the moment. Part of it comes from some unique aspects of Categories which are still finding their feet, but also bridge across many articles - touching on highly POV issues in some and being irrelevant in others. I'm currently having trouble finding any concensus at Category talk:art and various subcats Category:Birmingham, England where User:Pigsonthewing doesn't want to discuss general categorising issues, but argues the toss, or ignores discussion, on each individual article inappropriately categorised. -- Solipsist 22:47, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Well, I suppose I'll just have to laugh it off. I admit I am rather drawn to the seedy/morbid side of life. To me, having a category of alcoholics was a way of me finding my spiritual brethren. With the emphasis on spirit. I was really hoping the category would take off and I'd find all these other characters I wouldn't otherwise have known about. I may go with a list/article thing - either starting or developing one. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 22:58, Aug 24, 2004 (UTC)
The curreny compromise seems to be to start a 'List of xxx" article. -- Solipsist 23:03, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Man Who Was Thursday[edit]

It was a bit cheeky of you to restore the table without mentioning it in your edit comment. If you feel strongly about these abominable tables, please contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#Infoboxes considered harmful. Gdr 13:03, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)

That's weird. I was all ready to trounce you with self-righteous invective, since I believed myself wholly innocent of the crime. My intention was indeed purely to disambiguate depression. I wondered if it might have been a simaltaneous submission of an edit that meant the table ended up going back in, but looking at the times on the edit history I don't see how that can be the case.
The only similar thing that's happened to me like this before was one of my very first edits when someone reverted me and I asked why, since all I had done was to wikify a link... turned out I'd deleted half the article by mistake. I've never really come to understand how that happened either, though nobody has told me off for doing anything similar again.
For the record, I did only go to the Thursday article after seeing the discussion on boxes to see what was being debated, but I had no strong feelings either way. All I can hope to say in support of that is that you won't find me reinserting info boxes on any other novels pages. Apologies, I'm baffled. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 15:54, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)
I think I know what happened. You followed the link from the Village pump, which was to an old version of the page. You clicked on "edit this page" and missed the warning about editing an out-of-date version. Please accept my apologies for impugning you, it was a very easy mistake to make. Gdr 16:14, 2004 Aug 25 (UTC)
Ah, I'm glad you tidied that up. I was sitting here thinking: well, he's never going to believe that I've performed an accidental edit which happens to insert only the lines that involve the table, plus the depression thing many lines below. I suppose this raises a problem that I may also have unwittingly reverted some other edits to the article too. I'll have a look. Thanks for getting back to me. Regards, --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 17:46, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Cateorgories[edit]

I didn't do this. --Patricknoddy 22:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)User:Patricknoddy --Patricknoddy 22:56, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)User talk:Patricknoddy 18:56 August 25, 2004 (EDT)

I don't know what the solution is. There's way too much discussion about categories for it to make any sense at all. Perhaps sending categories via the normal VfD rather than having a whole new set of rules for it would be better? Angela. 10:43, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)


Help needed on :Category:Fundamental[edit]

The Main Page now has a BrowseBar consisting of 7 Fundamental Categories, with a default (More...) to 'Browse by category'. The difficulty is the selection of the 7. There have been some POV selections and we need help. The expectation is that the 7 somehow will lead to the rest of the world. I am curious why more people who are exposed to / expert in / interested in this problem don't chime on on the Main Page. Can you spread the word to the people who can contribute to the solution of this problem? Thank you, Ancheta Wis 00:20, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC) Or do we need more technology to solve this problem, such as drop-down menus based on the subcategories of a category?

  • I'm interested in helping us get a comprehensive meaningful and not too long top-level list of categories in our hierarchy. But nobody has discussed Category:Fundamental for 6 or 7 weeks even though there have been a few edits to the category. Where do we go from here? If this is the current place to discuss it, let me say I agree with one contributor that we could benefit by looking at what other sites (Yahoo was mentioned; and Zeal should not be overlooked) have done in devising exactly this sort of carve-up of the whole of human knowledge. I have some alternative spreads from other sites listed at http://mi.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Category. A look at their 2nd-level and 3rd-level subcategories is instructive too, because that leads to ideas about smaller categories that belong in two or more major threads (eg Scottish Schools is part of Education but is also part of Scotland). Robin Patterson 00:58, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • No this isn't the place to discuss it! Lord! ;o) If I have everyone over here discussing categorisation on the main page I'll be flooded! I had a look at Talk:Main page but it's not really something I feel qualified to talk about - but if there's a vote of any kind, or if something helpful occurs to me then I'll contribute there. I guess you should be looking for a librarian or archivist for a suitable scheme. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 01:24, Sep 2, 2004 (UTC)


Trade Descriptions Act 1968[edit]

Your article was slightly misnamed - I moved it to the correct place. Nice article, though :) Chris 01:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wikipals list[edit]

I know it's extremely lame but I've just started a wikipals list on my user page and you're on it. It's a list of generally "nice people" I've met in the year since I first signed up. If you don't want to to be on it let me know and I'll take you off. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:57, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Official invitation[edit]

Hi!

This is a message to let you know that there is now a UK-specific Wikipedia community page at Wikipedia:UK wikipedians' notice board. It would be great if you could come and get involved! -- Graham ☺ | Talk 22:34, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category:Editors[edit]

After 4 months,

I feel some responsibility for not checking, and propose that i move the three (and two subcats of Editors) down to print -- but it would seem to be wasted effort, if the current meaning of "editors" does not last.

I raise that question bcz i think that in terms of categories, the similarities between print editors and other editors (film, video, & sound?) amount to merely a play on words, and a higher category joining them is of no real interest -- in particular, i think the proper parent of Category:Editors would probably be Category:People by occupation, currently a dumping ground, even if many current children of that Cat could be lumped into sub-Cats of broadly similar jobs. It was a reasonable approach to try out, and your doing so is to your credit. (Your motivation of having an orphan to be parent of Category:Print editors, rather than leave it an orphan was a little sleazy, but clever enough to make that good sleaze!) But IMO it hasn't proven out, and the next scheme to try is:

I'd like to see that approach weighed on WP:CfD, and if Category:Print editors survives i'll do the appropriate repair as i suggested in an earlier 'graph.

If you agree, you'd be the perfect person to propose deletion; if instead i proposed it, i'd do so without reference to the originator.

I hope you'll forgive me if i've tried to think out the contingencies too far in advance!

[Belated sig, sorry.] --Jerzy(t)

That's a good plan too. I'll try not to forget it, but i may forget it in the press of things that are overdue; esp. it's hard not to bump up the priority of archiving significantly, when someone valuably reminds you to, the session after you almost did some! Thanks! --Jerzy(t) 01:45, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)

in response to Filenames in websites, length of...[edit]

in response to Filenames in websites, length of...

Who requests a page to a server (to you), requests an URL (or a URI) not a filename. Usually a server responds to a request by sending a file (but it is not always true). The file name usally (but is usually, not always) is the same of the last part of the URL. If you are creating a website storing its contents in some file on your web server, what you should be aware is to choose filename for this file that are valid for your computer. Valid means more than file length. Note that if you are writing file on a computer that is not the web server and after wrtitten them you transfer to web server, you have better to choose file names that are valid both on your computer and web server. For the client point of view (the person who use the browser and the system where the browser is running) the file name lenght is of no importance in the request. The only important point is the URL he/it is requesting. If a person have to manually type an URL, a shorter and easier URL is better. When he/it wants to save the page to a file he/it needs to choose a file name for his/its file systems. Usually the program suggest a file name based on the title of the html document or on the last part of the URL (which ussually came from the file name on the web server). If this would give a file name that is not valid on such system, it will suggests a different file name. But this is a problem for the client ystem not for the web server system. Nowadays almost all computer should accept long filename (but shortness is always better when not incomprensible). Note that are a lot of computer system and a lot of file system type. The 8+3 length limit of DOS would not be the only problem to address to find a file name valid to every computer (the computer are not only the Personal Computer, and not every computer used the most famous operating system). It will be an unsolvable problems (and years ago it would even worse). So the rule of the internet says that are not the file name that are passed over the internet but the URL. AnyFile 15:42, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • Thank you phantom stranger ;o) I will usually try to keep the filename as short as possible, but I also like to have it slightly descriptive. I'll strike a balance. --[[User:Bodnotbod|bodnotbod » .....TALKQuietly)]] 21:37, Oct 17, 2004 (UTC)


London meetup Dec 3rd[edit]

Hiya. I just wanted to make sure you are aware of thisWikipedia:Meetup/London Cheers Theresa Knott (Tart, knees hot) 10:55, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license 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 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 top 1000 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:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bodnotbod/Nov06&oldid=1141617484"